Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I can't even begin to fathom what a war with Iran looks like, other than a whole bunch of innocents dead.

Pretty well true of the vast majority of all human conflicts, Strike, unless you are cynical enough to believe that there are no innocents and that we all deserve to get it in the neck.

[spmetla]

I can't even begin to fathom what a war with Iran looks like, other than a whole bunch of innocents dead.

It would be bloody on both sides' militaries for sure. Unlike Iraq, Iran has the ability to hit US bases in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait and Qatar) to include the actual CENTCOM Headquarters.
Iran has so much airspace and such rugged terrain that the air campaign would be more like it was over Kosovo in the 90s than Iraq in the the Gulf War with trees and mountains etc... that mask AAA/SAM.
It would probably get Saudi Arabia involved directly and thereby a much larger and very 'hot' war for the entire region. How it would play out for our Troops in Afghanistan would be an interesting question and how Iraq's pro-Iran government would act would be questionable to say the least. I'd also wonder how Turkey would act, for 2003 they didn't allow the US of their territory to invade Iraq, if they did the same for Iran then the US would be effectively limited to Naval Aviation until it could establish more bases not within striking distance of the Iranian Air Force.

All that aside, I think we were closer to going to war with Iran under George W. than under Trump. Despite his talk about how strong the military is now it's really no better or worse than two years ago, though no longer worrying about budget sequestration.

This is probably just his trying to appear Strong for the whole MAGA thing not to mention distract from the continual fallout from Helsinki showing him as a Russian stooge together with Mueller Probe, Manafort trial, and the Russia/NRA woman.

[AE Bravo]

It would be bloody on both sides' militaries for sure. Unlike Iraq, Iran has the ability to hit US bases in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait and Qatar) to include the actual CENTCOM Headquarters.

Iran has spy cells in Kuwait so it's very much possible, but Qatar is where it gets complicated for Iran and some suspect it is partly in its sphere of influence after the Gulf crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_...ndensate_field

That, coupled with its isolation from its neighbors are major reasons Iran is unlikely to hurt Qatar in any way.

[rory_20_uk]

Iraq were. bluntly, idiots for even trying to have a stand-up fight with the coalition. Iran would have learnt the lesson and would probably fight as unconventionally as possible, via proxies and moving assets to surrounding countries where possible.

In short, the risk is great and the gain is practically non-existent.

[a completely inoffensive name]

a few Republicans introduce articles of impeachment on Rosenstein.

Looks like the collapse of our republic is well underway.

[spmetla]

Well hopefully nothing comes of it beyond their trying to use it for gain in primary elections.

The Republic is certainly in danger if the legislative branch refuses to check the excesses of the executive, especially if the executive is allowed to fill the judicial with pliant judges. We haven't reach collapse and there is opportunity for the system to check itself, though it looks like the will to do so just isn't there unless the opposition takes at least the senate or the house.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

a few Republicans introduce articles of impeachment on Rosenstein.

Looks like the collapse of our republic is well underway.

I'd replace republic with GOP.

I do not see an existential threat to the USA. I do see Trump's hardcore third of the GOP breaking with the rest of the party, possibly even forming a true third party. This would leave the Dems (to the extent that they are organized) as the largest organized party.

Or, alternatively, the Trump hardcores opt out of politics altogether.

[rory_20_uk]

First past the post will force pieces together soon enough - better to have some power than none at all.

[spmetla]

That wing of the GOP should form their own party just as the extreme left should too but with the first past the post system there is zero incentive to do so. By being under the big tent it's more useful for them to try and take control of the party than form their own.

That's why I'm a big fan of preferential voting systems. You can vote for your third party or whatever without throwing your vote away, it would mean people could vote for who they actually like instead of choosing the lesser of two evils.

It would allow the extreme of the the Republicans to actually vote for the Libertarian or Whig candidates or form Christian-Nationalist party (Trumpers) without having to distort what the Republican party has been for decades. Same with the Democrats, let it split into a Social-Democrat party and something else. Might actually help voter turnout if people could vote for the the people they want without having it be pointless if that person isn't the leader of a major party not to mention that third party candidates don't get accusing of spoiling the vote for one of the major parties.

[Montmorency]

I disagree with that characterization. It is the full whole of the Republican Party we behold: they own Trumpism to the hilt. Why would the fascists split the party they have sown and reaped? This is exactly the logical progression of what Republicans have been doing for 50 years. They made their choices and, faced with their creation, crossed the Rubicon and departed the realm of legitimate politics.

I have to be aggressive here in refusing to countenance anyone apologizing for the Republican Party ever again. Don't indulge in the (understandable) face-saving exercise of pretending that Trumpism is the mark of an extremist fringe of the party rather than its essence, blood, and avatar. Trump is the perfect Republican.

Enjoy this article - Never Trumpers Will Want to Read This History Lesson - on the dissolution of the Whig party and the Democrats who acknowledged that their party was irredeemably degenerate before the Slavery question, swallowed their pride, and joined the Republican Party. Based on the representations you have offered in this forum, you should be prepared to transfer into the current Friedmanite* Democratic Party and pine for the day when progressives and socialists split off into their own party, leaving behind a proper center-right pro-business club.

*Per Larry Summers

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

IF John Maynard Keynes was the most influential economist of the first half of the 20th century, then Milton Friedman was the most influential economist of the second half.

Not so long ago, we were all Keynesians. (“I am a Keynesian,” Richard Nixon famously said in 1971.) Equally, any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites.

[spmetla]

Just to be clear, I am not a Republican. I always vote based on the individual candidate, as I live in Hawaii, that means a fair number of Democrats. My leanings on the national scale are more toward the Republicans of the early 90s. Voting based along party lines without knowing anything about the individual candidates (besides 1 or 2 of the top candidates)is almost worse than not voting at all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If the Dems would start fielding more candidates who were liberal on social issues, but strong on defense and pro economy (JFK, Truman), they could steal my vote from this current GOP. I can debate the social issues, and some of them should go the liberal direction. "My" wing of the GOP still outnumbers the Trump wing. Sadly, the Trumpeteer voice is louder and too many of the rest of the GOP is more worried about pandering for power than standing for classic principled conservatism (lips service at election time does not equal what they deliver).

Trump really has crystalized all of the cynical elements of the Southern Strategy and the Jingoism of Reagan conservatism (but not the substance) along with the protectionist demagoguery of Buchannan. Too much tolerance for fascist insipidities and unthinking racism. Racism of all things, even though it is prima facie a declaration of your own stupidity to seriously count that as relevant (except where racism itself has MADE such a pointless distinction relevant and hurtful).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Seamus, 88% of Republicans support the president after all that has been revealed...I'm afraid your wing is no longer relevant.

Count yourself among the never Trumpers, and jump ship. Google some of what David Frum has been writing recently. Conservatives in the United States would rather keep their conservatism than keep their democratic traditions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My leanings on the national scale are more toward the Republicans of the early 90s.

You identify with Newt Gingrich?

[a completely inoffensive name]

you should be prepared to transfer into the current Friedmanite* Democratic Party and pine for the day when progressives and socialists split off into their own party, leaving behind a proper center-right pro-business club.

Funny enough it was the Clinton's that embraced the Friedmanite 'Third Way' politics which overthrew the New Deal era Dems for control of the party. Why do Republicans hate them again? Oh yea, they stole their polices.

Progressives and socialists won't split off, they are the future of the party. My generation is getting anxious and vindictive against the older generations.

[spmetla]

You identify with Newt Gingrich?

More with Bush Sr.

[Montmorency]

More with Bush Sr.

Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, and others overthrew these Northeastern "Rockefeller" Republicans during the struggle over party definition, 1960s-70s-80s. Democrats subsumed their role in an attempt to undercut these new Republicans, later identified with Reagan.

Rockefeller Republicans/Eisenhower Democrats believe(d) in low deficits, limited taxes, capitalist markets and the "level playing field". Goldwater/Friedman/Reagan Republicans, today transitioned to their <anime reference> form as Trump Republicans, believe in high spending hand-in-hand with tax cuts to deliberately weaken the government until it can be Norquisted. Their view on legitimate functions of government is confined to offense (military + security) and upward redistribution through corporate subsidies.

The faction you prefer, which saw a role for noblesse oblige and "classical" conservatism, was historically DOA by the time of Bush Sr.'s presidency.

Seamus, 88% of Republicans support the president after all that has been revealed...I'm afraid your wing is no longer relevant.

Count yourself among the never Trumpers, and jump ship. Google some of what David Frum has been writing recently. Conservatives in the United States would rather keep their conservatism than keep their democratic traditions.

"My" wing of the GOP still outnumbers the Trump wing. Sadly, the Trumpeteer voice is louder and too many of the rest of the GOP is more worried about pandering for power than standing for classic principled conservatism (lips service at election time does not equal what they deliver).

To wit, the redcaps are the 99%.

The very best available interpretation of the Republican Party today as a group is that the majority of its voters simply haven't caught up yet because they don't follow current events at all and maintain party-line voting as their primary heuristic.

If the Dems would start fielding more candidates who were liberal on social issues, but strong on defense and pro economy (JFK, Truman),

...H-Hillary??

[spmetla]

The faction you prefer, which saw a role for noblesse oblige and "classical" conservatism, was historically DOA by the time of Bush Sr.'s presidency.

Fair enough, I can still look to the qualities I prefer though. I also will not vote for the wingbats. I liked McCain but with Palin on the ticket I could not vote for him. Enough of the very proud conservatives within the military circles I know absolutely love Trump and what he says and what they think he's doing and having listened to these guys I know there is nothing that will ever get them to change their mind. I'm sure that Trump could go right out and say that he prefers Russia's authoritarian conservatism and wants to make the US more like Russia and he'd get great support.
The era you point toward is exactly when my grandparents had to stop voting Republican. Their [GOP] shift toward favoring southern whites while the democrats took the torch for being social progressives under Kennedy and Johnson reversed the political landscape.

The very best available interpretation of the Republican Party today as a group is that the majority of its voters simply haven't caught up yet because they don't follow current events at all and maintain party-line voting as their primary heuristic.

The SJW association with the Democrats makes them absolutely unappealing to a lot of Trump supporters. They want to to hate who they hate without being told to feel guilty about it, political correctness be damned. Same with the people that see the Republicans as the bastion of conservatism, they'll never vote for another party so long as the Republicans are anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti immigrant and will vote on the party line every time.

...H-Hillary??

If she wasn't politically toxic with half the country she would have worked (I know she won the popular vote but we don't use that system). Take her policies and have almost any other democrat run with them and they'd probably win. Seeing as she's essentially been running for President since she was first lady she has been far too long in the public eye and is seen as a power hungry expletive. I certainly didn't like her but I'd have preferred her over Trump, I demand at least competence even if I disagree with the policies or individuals.

I wouldn't actually call her strong on defense, she, her husband and Obama were all about the air/drone strike diplomacy. Fine to do a few strikes to make it look like something has happened but never send in ground troops because that's too bloody and messy. She voted for the Iraq war and support the intervention in Libya, that doesn't equal strong on defense, just short sighted.

I think someone like General Clark would do well in a general election for the Democrats over the Republicans in today's environment but he'd have trouble even getting nominated because he's a white male with a military background which means he's not ground breaking enough to excite young democratic voters.

[Montmorency]

Liberals like to think that Trump's behavior wrt Iran, Russia, and North Korea is a dealbreaker for even conservative military service members. My understanding of Trumpism suggests this should impinge only on Independent types who don't mostly vote R. What are you hearing in general on these subjects?

The SJW association with the Democrats makes them absolutely unappealing to a lot of Trump supporters. They want to to hate who they hate without being told to feel guilty about it, political correctness be damned. Same with the people that see the Republicans as the bastion of conservatism, they'll never vote for another party so long as the Republicans are anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti immigrant and will vote on the party line every time.

What I had in mind is, people who might watch a couple hours of cable news per week or listen to half an hour of talk radio every day, otherwise no engagement, who literally do not know what's going on in the world. Such a type would still bear liability for their political choices, but it at least salvages honor compared to the cult members with eyes wide open.

You know the latter...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't care what Trump up as long as he keeps triggering liberals.

Trump makes me feel good as a Real American.

Maybe his policies will hurt me, but I know I have to make sacrifices for the greater good as long as the government isn't for the bad people.

etc.

If she wasn't politically toxic with half the country she would have worked (I know she won the popular vote but we don't use that system). Take her policies and have almost any other democrat run with them and they'd probably win. Seeing as she's essentially been running for President since she was first lady she has been far too long in the public eye and is seen as a power hungry expletive. I certainly didn't like her but I'd have preferred her over Trump, I demand at least competence even if I disagree with the policies or individuals.

I wouldn't actually call her strong on defense, she, her husband and Obama were all about the air/drone strike diplomacy. Fine to do a few strikes to make it look like something has happened but never send in ground troops because that's too bloody and messy. She voted for the Iraq war and support the intervention in Libya, that doesn't equal strong on defense, just short sighted.

I think someone like General Clark would do well in a general election for the Democrats over the Republicans in today's environment but he'd have trouble even getting nominated because he's a white male with a military background which means he's not ground breaking enough to excite young democratic voters.

Funny you should mention that, because progressives have (at least since last year) been crapping endlessly on the DNC/DCCC for prattling about "identity politics" yet consistently intervening in local primaries to support white (often male) military veterans (or business persons) over women and minorities with more populist platforms.

So Bush wasn't strong on defense? Who is an example? I'll let Seamus speak for himself, but if "strong on defense" means insert ground troops at the drop of a hat (of course I'm framing it that way because it sounds bad to me), didn't Obama do that in numerous countries throughout Africa and Asia, with special forces and training missions? If it's budgetary, lavish defense spending is bipartisan. If it's about being willing to start a major ground war, I don't recall any candidate in either party explicitly calling for the real deal, like explicitly a ground invasion of Syria/Iran or direct strikes against Russian armed forces... You'll have to explain yourselves.

As for Hillary, without revisiting particulars of her career or person I recall polls showing that her favorability was fairly high among the general population between 2010 and 2015; it's more that she was susceptible to the election propaganda machine, partly because it had a generation to really get in motion, and wasn't effective at counteracting its impact.

I don't know what Clark's positions or orientations are. If he's a Kerry or even a Biden type he's no good for the coming cycle. Kerry or Biden don't beat Trumpism.

[spmetla]

So Bush wasn't strong on defense? Who is an example? I'll let Seamus speak for himself, but if "strong on defense" means insert ground troops at the drop of a hat (of course I'm framing it that way because it sounds bad to me), didn't Obama do that in numerous countries throughout Africa and Asia, with special forces and training missions? If it's budgetary, lavish defense spending is bipartisan. If it's about being willing to start a major ground war, I don't recall any candidate in either party explicitly calling for the real deal, like explicitly a ground invasion of Syria/Iran or direct strikes against Russian armed forces... You'll have to explain yourselves.

I can only speak for myself of course but overall Bush was strong on defense, but only in that he stopped the 90s decline. His allowing it a seemingly endless budget with little to no oversight as well as getting us into Iraq which ended up eroding our ability to fight conventional wars has made us qualitatively weaker in peer to near peer fights.
Best example would probably be Bush Sr. Shrink the military from Cold War to peacetime in order to spend that money elsewhere but not to shrink it so much that we're strapped in the event we need to fight a war ( if we needed to fight desert storm again with similar troop numbers it would take nearly our entire active duty army).
I'm actually a proponent for forcing our military to work with a smaller budget. Surely we can get rid of a lot of the Flag positions, research into silly things like exoskeletons and robotic mules, and so on without having to shrink the military. It would require real oversight into acquisitions so we're not paying a half million dollars per vehicle for the the humvee replacement (the JTLV) or the endless boondoggle known as the F-35. A lavish military is the easy cop-out for appearing strong on defense and a typical American method. If it's got a problem throw money at it till it works.
I would say it would require being willing to start a major ground war. The ability and willingness to do so is what makes a deterrence effective. That willingness needs to however be governed by oversight by Congress, a blank check to start wars that aren't emergencies affecting our national security is unconstitutional to say the least. Congress having abdicated its role in war and foreign policy is what has allowed the Trump era to become so dangerous to our international relations and norms.
I don't want a war with Iran or Russia or anything at the moment. However we need to ensure we've got the ability and the will to defend our allies be they South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, NATO, etc.. Obama's pivot to Asia with no additional forces or or increase in military cooperation was seen as toothless as it actually was. TPP was the only achievement and unfortunately he couldn't get Congress to ratify it. All his training missions in Africa are just soft power and the use of SOF is rather limited outside of what they were doing in Syria and Afghanistan.
As for direct strikes on Russia, that'd be extremely dangerous. George W. Bush knew that we when Georgia stupidly went to war with Russia over South Ossetia. The Russians saw also that we were happy to expand NATO to their borders but that war also showed that we were not willing or able to contest them in their 'near abroad'. How do you stop a Russian invasion of Crimea? You'd probably have to be willing to risk WW3 on the matter as Truman did with the Berlin blockade and Kennedy did with the Cuban missile crisis. Right now we'd be unprepared for that type of war and Russia knows it, correcting that weakness would be a good start for actually being strong on defense. Same goes for China, at some point they will contest our defense of Taiwan and a political unwillingness to actually defend that ally will probably let them be abandoned by us. I fear that if the US is in a 'why fight for Danzig' moment that we will take the easy way out and let our allies down. Trump's vocal questioning of why we should defend Montenegro is a fine example of it.

Funny you should mention that, because progressives have (at least since last year) been crapping endlessly on the DNC/DCCC for prattling about "identity politics" yet consistently intervening in local primaries to support white (often male) military veterans (or business persons) over women and minorities with more populist platforms.

It's part of a good turn around (in my mind) so that the Republicans can stop pretending to have ownership of American patriotism. It what's allowed things like the NFL kneeling controversy go from a free speech issue to a patriotism/respect our veterans thing. Also the more populist platforms play well to Democrats but to win general elections in solid republican states will probably require a more moderate approach. This would go more toward the thread on compromise. Going cold turkey into policies usually doesn't fair well, on many issues it's best to ease into them overtime. I don't mean things like abortion or civil rights but things like universal health care and pensions. Drastic change over a short period usually causes strong reactionary movements (like the Tea Party or Trumpism...).

As for Hillary, without revisiting particulars of her career or person I recall polls showing that her favorability was fairly high among the general population between 2010 and 2015; it's more that she was susceptible to the election propaganda machine, partly because it had a generation to really get in motion, and wasn't effective at counteracting its impact.

Susceptible to propaganda equals politically toxic in my explanation. A generation of her being painted a witch doesn't make here a viable candidate in the solid Republican states that hate her.

[Montmorency]

Was there something Bush did that you think Clinton should have, starting in his first 6 months? 9/11 and the War on Terror is what reversed the 90's drawdown.

Well, if you know of a way to create an actual credible deterrent to the worst-case scenarios of Russian invasion of NATO or Chinese invasion of Korea/Japan/SE Asia that doesn't involve stationing hundreds of thousands of troops abroad, that allows keeping the defense budget under half a trillion while funding requisite naval and nuclear renewal, I wouldn't be unhappy to consider myself strong on defense.

It's part of a good turn around (in my mind) so that the Republicans can stop pretending to have ownership of American patriotism. It what's allowed things like the NFL kneeling controversy go from a free speech issue to a patriotism/respect our veterans thing.

I don't understand, what are you saying about the NFL protests? Anyway, it's not a turnaround, Democrats have been doing it for a long time. Your idea of moderation in red states is exactly the disastrous bet Democrats have played since you were born. Just the opposite is indicated. Democratic policies, including (especially!) the hard-left ones are overwhelmingly popular among the general population including red states. It's hard to convince oneself why Democrats should reject the exceedingly simple and intuitive platform of promising to give people what they want, actually doing it, and doing it well and enduringly. And I repeat, I am referring to the popular policies. If there is dismay at the prospect of the unpopular ones (especially concentrated in hard-left proposals on policing and immigration), in the words of LBJ: "What the hell else is the Presidency for?"

Even the type of firebrand arch-populist leftism epitomized in this frissonating polemic -

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...sexy-colu.html

I’m a leftist. Our political platform is simple and straightforward. The public doesn’t have enough money or power. Their money and power were stolen by elites. We will fix this. We will take the power and money and give it back to the public. We will elect politicians who believe in this program. We will oppose the politicians who don’t.

can be expected to attain viability over the current national model.

Susceptible to propaganda equals politically toxic in my explanation. A generation of her being painted a witch doesn't make here a viable candidate in the solid Republican states that hate her.

Very interesting: Clinton's favorability, according to Pew Research, was between 1992 and 2015 almost always above 50%; even the 2008 election saw only a minor dip. I don't think many could have predicted, for the right reasons, that her favorability could drop so much so suddenly in 2015 and 2016. Clinton announced her candidacy in April 2015. Look at the favorability plummet starting exactly a month prior, days after the NYT first reported the existence of the private email server issue. Suggests that Clinton's failure to properly explain the email controversy cost her comparably as much as decades of prior Republican defamation (though this at least served as primer). As much as we might hate to think it, the 2016 election will become one of the most studied in American history.

[AE Bravo]

As you can see they're both the same except one wants a war with Iran while the other wants a war with Russia.

Here's an article about the Russia political narrative: https://www.thenation.com/article/el...on-russiagate/

A poll by The Hill and the HarrisX polling company found 54 percent support for Trump’s now-scuttled plan for a follow-up summit with Putin at the White House. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that Trump’s post-Helsinki approval rating slightly increased to 45 percent.

In a recent Gallup poll on problems facing the country, the “Situation with Russia” was such a marginal concern that it did not even register. While an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that 64 percent believe Trump has not been tough enough on Russia, it also saw a near-even split on whether Putin is a foe or an ally, and 59 percent support for better relations.

Suppose, however, that all of the claims about Russian meddling turn out to be true. Hacking e-mails and voter databases is certainly a crime, and seeking to influence another country’s election can never be justified. But the procession of elite voices falling over themselves to declare that stealing e-mails and running juvenile social-media ads amount to an “attack,” even an “act of war,” are escalating a panic when a sober assessment is what is most needed.

Oh and so much for being a so-called traitor:

Fixation on the alleged Russian threat does not just obscure our own past. With the attendant suspicion of Trump’s potential subordination to Putin, it is obscuring the reality in front of us. Anyone paying attention to Trump’s actual policies cannot escape the conclusion that his administration “has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era” (Daniel Vajdich of the NATO-funded Atlantic Council), wherein “U.S. policy toward Russia has, if anything, hardened under [Trump’s] watch” (Brookings fellow and former State Department official Jeremy Shapiro). The new Pentagon budget earmarks $6.5 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative—a military program aimed at confronting Russia in Eastern Europe—a 91 percent increase over President Obama’s last year in office. Following Trump’s decision to sell anti-tank missiles to Ukraine—a move Obama resisted—the Pentagon has just announced $200 million in new military assistance. The NATO summit right before Helsinki prompted widespread suspicions that Trump was undermining the transatlantic alliance, possibly at Putin’s behest. All seemed to overlook what Trump actually did: openly criticize Russia’s prized Nord Stream 2 gas project with Germany and badger NATO members to increase military spending. At a post-Helsinki Senate hearing, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo touted Trump’s “massive defense buildup that threatens Vladimir Putin’s regime” and reaffirmed that the United States will never recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Monty is correct that another Kerry would get beaten by Trumpism. Biden might not, but only if Biden went hard for the unions and manufacturing -- so Monty is probably right about that style of candidate falling short against Trump.


Hillary in 2008 was electable, but eclipsed by someone with more charisma. By 2016 she was much less competitive. The combative reactionary side of the GOP was energized by 8 years of Obama and the endless harangue of the radio-red-meat-righties; Hillary's policy set did not chart any new territory to energize her base; Hillary's charisma was lackluster, especially when the last two Dem Presidents getting on stage before she accepted the nomination were Clinton and Obama (she never was able to work a crowd as either of them did and do); and finally, in our culture at least, women north of age 60 rapidly lose appeal with some voters on physical attractiveness (which should be irrelevant in a President, but voters can be superficial and our culture is still kinder to aging men than to aging women when evaluating physical attractiveness: Hillary was thought to be witchy, Bernie was a "cute-little-old-man" to quote my daughter).

As for strong on Defense, I liked Reagan and Bush 41. Hated Carter. Disliked Clinton (though mostly on force readiness, not deployment). Obama I had mixed feelings about. Bush 43 was too willing to listen to the neo-cons. He was obviously strong on defense, but a bit cavalier even for this right winger. And the neo-con strategy of hemming in Iran by crushing Iraq and Afghanistan had and has more than a few flaws both strategically and tactically.

On the whole, I think too many of our Commanders in chief have committed troops and military material too often, but have generally tried to do so "on the cheap." That approach, imho, has a lot of problems. Sometimes it works, but often it simply kicks the can down the road on actually resolving a situation.

[Montmorency]

As you can see they're both the same except one wants a war with Iran while the other wants a war with Russia.

Here's an article about the Russia political narrative: https://www.thenation.com/article/el...on-russiagate/




Oh and so much for being a so-called traitor:

Nah.

The media has done a bad job explaining Russian actions and relations besides reminding consumers that it exists. Try checking the poll numbers once you control for Republicans.

If, as has become chillingly plausible over time, the Russians modified state voter rolls, we are squarely in the territory of illegitimacy. We are only one step from this revelation, though we can only hope it did not come that far. If vote tallies were modified, anything becomes possible.

Haranguing allies for not meeting perceived obligations to the United States, to no obvious effect that could threaten Russia (quite the opposite) is not an anti-Russian action.

Obama launched the EDI and increased funding to $3 billion over time in office. Republicans' proposed increases across the board in military spending of course would affect this program. If you have evidence Trump personally advocated for funding increases to this specific program, present it. At any rate, the administration's (executive's) input in budgetary details is small compared to the Congress that drafts it.

The fact that Trump's cabinet secretaries and other selected officials constantly contradict him does not reflect well on Trump.

The closest this comes to a point is in the sale of ~200 Javelin missiles and ~40 launchers to Ukraine. If this were flanked with consistent policy aimed at constraining Russia and multiplied by an order of magnitude, we could call it approaching "tough on Russia".


I really hate the misinformation and disingenuous takes on Russia. I understand if one is on the take, or is an outright fascist, but too many have allowed reflexive anti-Americanism to turn their heads to mush.

[AE Bravo]

The only source you've given about this whole meddling affair is from the US Senate, one of the actors who are being accused of throwing up a smokescreen by a large portion of the US public. See there's this core principle called due process in the US and I'm not seeing what's chillingly plausible to you. I get really wary of people acting as if the whole issue is settled. All we have are the words of a few government agencies which lied consistently in the past.

[Montmorency]

The only source you've given about this whole meddling affair is from the US Senate, one of the actors who are being accused of throwing up a smokescreen by a large portion of the US public. See there's this core principle called due process in the US and I'm not seeing what's chillingly plausible to you. I get really wary of people acting as if the whole issue is settled. All we have are the words of a few government agencies which lied consistently in the past.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you be more specific?

The details of the issue are not settled. The contours are. Skepticism in January 2017 was recommended. Skepticism today is self-delusion or contrarian compulsion. I don't know how much you know, so just tell me what you think the facts are.

The presumption of innocence exists only in the courtroom during the course of a criminal trial and nowhere else. Trump has not yet been put through the judicial system, save for his many hundreds of civil suits. Don't worry your head for him; no single person in the world is better placed to receive the full benefits of due process. I'm not advocating for a Yanukovych treatment, far from it. The whole affair must be hashed out in the courts for all to see. Impeachment is a nice idea because -

because let's say you believe in something absurd to make Russia go away. Maybe, for instance, the dozens and dozens of secret (and lied about) meetings and attempts at incognito communication channels by dozens of campaign and administration and GOP members high and low, were actually all because people around Trump just like listening to Russian accents. They find it soothing, perhaps. So soothing they'll lie prodigiously about it and disrupt the workings of the country to get their fix. They'll jet around talking to various Asian and Arab autocrats about business dealings with Russia on the agenda of sharing the amazing Russian accent with the world. Leaving aside that this surreal scenario in itself would potentially be impeachable, let's go ahead and abstractly excise any possible relevance of Russian compromission, policy conduct toward Russia, anything and everything. Trump would still be impeachable a dozen times over for his conduct in office. He would have been impeachable the instant he was sworn in. So you understand why impeachment could be seen as a procedural good in itself. Alas, Trump will never be impeached this coming cycle; it's, as I described earlier in the thread, mathematically unavailable. It will be endured.

But giving Trump his metaphorical day in court is indispensable for the health and sanity of the country. For the sake of the truth. It's non-negotiable, and were the future DOJ, or any succeeding administration or Congress to discard the process in the name of "healing the country", they would do so at the risk of disgracing themselves.


Refresh my IIRC, aren't you a Shiite Arab in the Middle East? Your style of posting has changed so much from previous years you could, along with the name change, be taken for another person.

Disclaimer: You'll hate me for taking this out of context, but here's a dunk courtesy of Mangal Media:

Opposing racist narratives and the manipulation of historical truths for one’s own ideological end should be a starting point for any discussion. If the ‘anti-war’ movement cannot face its own racism and Islamophobia, it is not a movement aimed at our wellbeing and dignity. If the bar is this low for the left, then yes – let us be divisive. If this is what is to be accepted by whatever the “antiwar movement” is – then yes! Let us completely destroy it. What use is it to us if these people call themselves “anti-war,” but commit themselves to a dogmatic left-statist position where the crimes of Soviets or modern-day Russia are whitewashed in whataboutisms.

[AE Bravo]

Referring to this document: https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/medi...ings,Recs2.pdf

I’m trying to wrap my head around why one should blame anyone besides the US government first and foremost.

The details of the issue are not settled. The contours are. Skepticism in January 2017 was recommended. Skepticism today is self-delusion or contrarian compulsion. I don't know how much you know, so just tell me what you think the facts are.

How are they settled? Why should crimes levied against a foreign government not call into question the actions of the victim state in this circumstance? If the US wants to make a fuss about its cybersecurity and its sovereignty, it needs to examine itself first before sabotaging international relations. I don't understand how you can say skepticism is self-delusion when the issue is far from being settled.

They find it soothing, perhaps. So soothing they'll lie prodigiously about it and disrupt the workings of the country to get their fix. They'll jet around talking to various Asian and Arab autocrats about business dealings with Russia

Very shady I agree. Hasn’t Israel been doing the same thing? I think America's elites love Israeli accents a little bit more. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8470481.html

Refresh my IIRC, aren't you a Shiite Arab in the Middle East? Your style of posting has changed so much from previous years you could, along with the name change, be taken for another person.

I don’t know how it has changed (Sunni btw), but I’m not sure how going as far as to call those trying to ease the tensions with Russia fascists, with US funding fascist apartheid regimes and Israel funding fascists in Ukraine. It’s hard to engage someone who starts from a position that Russia is the aggressor when the US acted treacherously and reneged on their agreements with Russia regarding NATO for example: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

[Montmorency]

Once more, you're oscillating between the two questions of 'What happenned, what is happening?' and 'What is the historical and philosophical context?' I've already commented on the latter, you know my opinion, and the weaknesses of your own. I won't bandy any more in scorecarding and whataboutism. My only interest here is underlining "what happened".

Since you raised some of the more recent developments in the hacking investigtion, we can discuss that: efforts to hack or modify the electoral infrastructure, and their Russian origin.

First, the late report is a Senate summary based on the reports of numerous state governments, agencies of the federal government, and independent and contracted investigators. This isn't something a Senate subcommittee extrapolated from original research.

The Committee’s assessments, as well as the assessments of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are based on
self-reporting by the states. DHS has been clear in its representations to the Committee
that the Department did not have perfect insight into these cyber activities. It is possible
that more states were attacked, but the activity was not detected. In light of the technical
challenges associated with cyber forensic analysis, it is also possible that states may have
overlooked some indicators of compromise.

Second, reports on this (I mean about cyber intrusions, not Congressional reports specifically) have been coming out since 2016, accumulating and painting a more profound and disturbing picture of the scope of Russian activities all the time. For example, in mid-2017 various CIA and NSA documents were leaked that provided details on one branch of the attempts to penetrate voting systems in the states, and the responsibility of the GRU in it. (Putin's response was to suggest that independent Russian "patriots" may have conducted cyber operations against the US after all.) Trump and his team were even briefed on the state of investigations before he was inaugurated. This briefing included text, audio, primary source testimony, and corroborating work done by multiple Western governments.

Third, it is already known that Russia has a demonstrated desire and a stated and demonstrated ability to engage in various forms of cyber operations against the United States (among others). Putin finally publicly admitted in the Helsinki summit that "[he] wanted Trump to win." The email hacks, the infrastructure hacks, and the microtargeting/information-war were all distinct but interrelated covert activities, and mutually corroborating. It is far less parsimonious to believe that multiple actors, not cooperating but working in tandem toward the same objective, would engage in discrete and non-overlapping fields of intervention. Mueller's indictments do not (yet) elucidate the state electoral hacks, but I recommend you look through Mueller's Russian indictments as they contain a fair amount of detail in describing and analyzing the process of the information ops and the email hacks, and their Russian provenance.

Fourth, someone is already known to be targeting the 2018 election: Microsoft recently announced spearphishing attempts against several Democratic candidates from domains that had previously been associated with the 2016 operation.

Now here's homework for you. In 2013, the Obama Administration admitted that the United States was directly involved in overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. Between 1953 and 2013, what evidence was there that the US had any part in this episode, that it wasn't the work of a guy sitting at their desk who weighs 400 lbs?

[AE Bravo]

You have so far labeled those who disagree with you as fascists and anti-American for not having the same faith in faulty intelligence as you do. It’s exactly the sort of elitism the article I linked before highlights in American discourse. The Senate summary is comprised of evidence from authoritative institutions and their overlords, the scriptural foundation a largely fact-free assessment yet the media insists on passing it off as unassailable fact. We agree that there is disinformation alright, just not on the same side.

Of course anything that provides context is dismissed as ‘whataboutism.’ So here’s some more context for you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.e69dae10b53f
The story was entirely wrong and was retracted, unlike the stories regarding Russian interference in the French and German elections even after they were discredited. California and Wisconsin election officials denied that the Russians hacked local and state voting systems as well.

As for your reference to the meetings which you called “incognito,” after publication of the story, Erik Prince said he was shown evidence by sources from the intelligence community that his name was unmasked and given to the paper. This was the Seychelles meeting. So what are you referring to exactly with the Russian and Arab autocrats meeting GOP secretly?

There are far more consequential threats to democracy than cyber-interference such as the billionaire interference, loss of voting rights protection, mass incarceration, immigrant scare-mongering, gerrymandering, electoral college, US Senate. This may as well be a campaign by bureaucrats who violated the privacy of American citizens, who are simply butturt over election results they disagreed with. Those who perpetuate this political narrative are their assets.

Second, reports on this (I mean about cyber intrusions, not Congressional reports specifically) have been coming out since 2016, accumulating and painting a more profound and disturbing picture of the scope of Russian activities all the time. For example, in mid-2017 various CIA and NSA documents were leaked that provided details on one branch of the attempts to penetrate voting systems in the states, and the responsibility of the GRU in it. (Putin's response was to suggest that independent Russian "patriots" may have conducted cyber operations against the US after all.)

Hand-picked analysts, the claims of the latter (NSA) made with only 'moderate confidence.' This is creating a misleading impression of unanimity, since only three of the sixteen intelligence agencies contributed to the report.

‘Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.’

Trump and his team were even briefed on the state of investigations before he was inaugurated. This briefing included text, audio, primary source testimony, and corroborating work done by multiple Western governments.

The sort of backchannel diplomacy that routinely happens between one administration and the next. Not a sign of collusion.

Fourth, someone is already known to be targeting the 2018 election: Microsoft recently announced spearphishing attempts against several Democratic candidates from domains that had previously been associated with the 2016 operation.

And the NSA probably knows who, yet hasn't presented the evidence yet. The NSA's ability to trace hacking to its source is a matter of public record.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...But giving Trump his metaphorical day in court is indispensable for the health and sanity of the country. For the sake of the truth. It's non-negotiable, and were the future DOJ, or any succeeding administration or Congress to discard the process in the name of "healing the country", they would do so at the risk of disgracing themselves....

I vividly recall Nixon being ousted in August of 1974 and the drumbeat for his arrest and trial that was bouncing around. Ford's pardon of Nixon was done for the "health and sanity of the country" and it was the correct choice in my opinion. Ford paid the price for his decision, since it did cost him votes in close states that might have turned the electoral college around in 1976. I've always respected him for that choice -- he was not a fool and knew that it would be an albatross in an already tough election context for the Republicans.


The long, drawn-out trial of a recent ex-president is almost superfluous as a punishment for the individual (the public repudiation of their reputation from a resignation is a significant punishment of its own). It smacks of vindictiveness. If anything, such a trial would only serve to shame and belittle people who voted in good faith to support that president. I would assert that that is not a sound move for the mental or political health of a country.