Political Thread XX

[HoonDing]

LOCK HIM UP

 

LOCK HIM UP

[Guard Dog]

New rule. For each new incoming President a special counsel will be appointed on inauguration day. A grand jury convened by July 4th each year following an election. By each new President's 2nd year State of the Union address a draft of Articles of Impeachment will be drawn up with certain fields left blank just waiting on the SC. Inconclusive findings will be leaked out prior to mid terms. If the mid terms go right for the opposition party then let the games begin.

 

In all seriousness what a crew we've had in the White House these last forty years. Sending money to to guerillas in contravention of law. Selling weapons to a sworn enemy to pay for it. One guy couldn't tell the truth if it was written on the wall in front of him, another took a small smoldering economic fire and flung a bucket of gasoline at it. One thought it was OK to use the IRS to harass his opposition and even though it would be OK to order us killed. Then there is this f-----g guy. All of them have started wars and wasted money like drunken sailors on a Bangkok 96. But if you look back and consider the people who might have been President but weren't things don't look any better! Who was the last US President you've respected? Kennedy? Eisenhower? Has there even been one? You's almost think we'd be better off abolishing the office.

 

I made this point before. Anyone who actually WANTS that job is probably someone we don't want to have it. Anyone who ends up there will likely have bodies hidden. And is absolutely willing to hide more.

[Gromnir]

All these arrests and convictions and plea deals yet still no evidence of actual legit election hacking. LMAO

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html

 

and the investigation were not only 'bout election interference, but also obstruction, and whether you is convinced by comey or not, there is evidence o' obstruction. 

 

regardless, investigations into criminal behavior frequent reveal additional charges for unrelated crimes.  criminals rare limit themselves to a single criminal act.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

Who was the last US President you've respected? Kennedy? Eisenhower? Has there even been one? You's almost think we'd be better off abolishing the office.

 

I made this point before. Anyone who actually WANTS that job is probably someone we don't want to have it. Anyone who ends up there will likely have bodies hidden. And is absolutely willing to hide more.

 

Kennedy is an interesting case because we really don't know how good he would have been if he survived for a second term. He is rarely criticized for Cuba and his role in Vietnam, but given credit for the Civil Rights Movement and the Space Race. Would he have been as effective as LBJ at pushing forward new domestic policies? 

 

I'm pretty partial to Eisenhower, since he was really the last President who seemed to understand what the role of the military should be in our society.

 

 

 

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” 

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Edited August 24, 2018 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

Your video doesn't work. Are those the Russians accused of 'hacking' the election  by  spamming online anti Clinton pro Trump silliness? If that is the definition of 'hacking' now?

 

Interverence and obstruction/ You mean having an opinion on who you want to win an election? Like  nobody in the world has an opinion on who they wanted to win an election? Or no Amerikan has never gave an opinion or spammed who they wanted to win elections elsewhere?

 

if that is your definition of 'hacking' an election that term has become meaningless.

[HoonDing]

"Who was the last US President you've respected?"

 

Clinton

 

he played the saxomophone while the ladies played on his flute

[Gromnir]

Your video doesn't work. Are those the Russians accused of 'hacking' the election  by  spamming online anti Clinton pro Trump silliness? If that is the definition of 'hacking' now?

 

Interverence and obstruction/ You mean having an opinion on who you want to win an election? Like  nobody in the world has an opinion on who they wanted to win an election? Or no Amerikan has never gave an opinion or spammed who they wanted to win elections elsewhere?

 

if that is your definition of 'hacking' an election that term has become meaningless.

is a ny times linked article, so you are likely blocked.  regardless, were enough evidence for an indictment o' russians.  means there is legal evidence.  may not be enough evidence to convict, but there is evidence or no indictment... and we sure as heck haven't abandoned reason such that we would adopt vol definition o' crimes as posed to us district court judges. 

 

and again, obstruction is different.  did the administration illegal interfere with various investigations?  doesn't matter if vol finds evidence compelling, but comey alone has offered relevant evidence regarding the possibility o' obstruction.  would be up to a finder o' fact to decide if they believe comey, but such evidence regarding trump meetings and phone calls would be relevant evidence.

 

edit: add for vol as an alternative to nyt link: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/402902-muellers-speaking-indictments-offer-clues-to-strategy

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps funny aside, but am thinking the recent fox interview is increasing problematic for trump.  claim by trump how he personal paid for hush payments not only doesn't get him outta unreported campaign contribution troubles, but such exposes him to tax problems.  business legal/attorney fees is tax deductible.  campaign contributions is not. if trump did payoff and then label as business legal/attorney fees, then there is possible tax issues for the president, and such a possibility is gonna require disclosure o' trump taxes. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

It's going to be very hard to prove it's election related when his womanising and covering it up has been systematic well before- well, well before- he started his election run. It would be embarrassing to Trump to disclose how many payments he's made, but it's clearly just embarrassing and anything else is wishful thinking.

 

What's Yemen?

 
They only asked him what a lepo was because the moderate western backed head choppers were the ones losing there. When it's western backed moderate wahhabi saudi head choppers dropping the bombs and starving literally millions that's not worth mentioning.

[Hurlshort]

The story of Volo versus the New York Times is a legend on the internets. They may block him, but they will never silence him.

[Gromnir]

It's going to be very hard to prove it's election related when his womanising and covering it up has been systematic well before- well, well before- he started his election run. It would be embarrassing to Trump to disclose how many payments he's made, but it's clearly just embarrassing and anything else is wishful thinking.

 

 

 

proof got a whole lot easier with pecker involvement.  prove campaign entanglement will be easier when both cohen and presumably pecker will testify as to actual reasons for payments.  is not much reason to grant pecker immunity unless he is able to offer evidence o' a crime. pay-off to cover-up an affair is not a crime.  affairs is, as you note, embarrassing, but is guys such as pecker who is in the business o' revealing extramarital affairs and not the US Attorney.  one expects that the manner in which payoff paper trail was handled, testimony from eye-witnesses and timing o' the payoffs is gonna make for more than simple embarrassment.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[smjjames]

And then theres that Weisselberg guy, who is said to know 'where all the financial bodies (as in secrets) are buried', which is a VERY big deal.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I'm pretty partial to Eisenhower, since he was really the last President who seemed to understand what the role of the military should be in our society.

 

 

 

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” 

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

Holy **** that is a good quote.

[smjjames]

I don't get this campaign donation regulation in the US. Every payment that influenced election is breaking the law? So if a candidate paid his tailor for a suit and everyone is like "what a great suit" and he won, he's going to jail? How about food, cand candidate pay for his food? After all if he is hungry or full of energy it's influencing election results. Please someone who knows US law (means not Gromnir) explain what I'm missing here.

 

It's a complex thing, I don't know the details or the legal specifics, and it's more intent outside of normal and expected campaign expenditures.

[Volourn]

It's a way to go 'Gotcha' against politicians one don't like.

[HoonDing]

Drumpf dindu nuffin

[213374U]

 

I'm pretty partial to Eisenhower, since he was really the last President who seemed to understand what the role of the military should be in our society.

 

 

 

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” 

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

Holy **** that is a good quote.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure the meaning is what we may take it to be today. Let's not forget that the US nuclear arsenal grew from ~1,200 warheads when Ike took office to about 22,000 when his term was up in 1961.

 

This was a guy whose main claim to fame was being Supreme Allied Commander Europe. If anyone should be war weary, it'd be him. No doubt Stalin & friends were a bunch of unredeemable scumbags, but it takes two to tango. So writing maudlin poems while gearing up for nuclear combat toe to toe with the russkies strikes me as a tad hypocritical (edit: from my post-modern urban sensibility and pov, I mean).

Edited August 25, 2018 by 213374U

[pmp10]

 

 

I'm pretty partial to Eisenhower, since he was really the last President who seemed to understand what the role of the military should be in our society.

 

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” 

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

Holy **** that is a good quote.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure the meaning is what we may take it to be today. Let's not forget that the US nuclear arsenal grew from ~1,200 warheads when Ike took office to about 22,000 when his term was up in 1961.

 

Yes, but IIRC he was the one to push much cheaper nukes over conventional buildup.

Seemed reasonable at the time but later back-fired in Vietnam.

[Gromnir]

 

I'm pretty partial to Eisenhower, since he was really the last President who seemed to understand what the role of the military should be in our society.

 

 

 

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” 

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

Holy **** that is a good quote.

 

world has gone topsy-turvy.  whenever we explain how eisenhower-nixon were the doves and kennedy-lbj were the hawks, we get blank stares and disbelief.  kennedy were elected in large part 'cause o' his rejection o' eisenhower era pacifism.  robert mcnamara's adoption o' metrics for determining success o' a military campaign (body count) were transformative and seeming irreversible as those in the pentagon desirous o' promotion knew they needed show progress and achievement through metrics. 

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?80828-1/dereliction-duty

 

is worth reading mcmaster's book, but is perhaps just as interesting to see 1997 mcmaster, with hair, at a local bookstore speaking to mostly empty chairs about mistakes o' vietnam. video quality kinda sucks.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ktchong]

Democrats Strip Superdelegates Of Power In Historic Reform Vote

 

 

 

 

 

i.e., Superdelegates will not get to vote in the first round; they will only get to vote if a second round or tiebreaker is needed.

 

Finally. 

 

Superdelegates are conservative in nature: they are the party elders and power elites who want to conserve the power structure and old rules in the party.  Now that they have lost power, they won't be able to stop radicals and socialists (who have become very popular among the party constituents but have been blocked by the elders, elites and super deletes in the party) from taking over.

 

Expect to see the equal but opposite of Donald Trump in the next DNC primaries, who will throw out everything to win supports and the nomination: single-payer, free public college tuition, $15 minimum wage, etc., and there will be no more superdelegates to stop them.

Edited August 25, 2018 by ktchong

[smjjames]

I don't expect the next Dem candidate to be quite that far out, but yes, limiting their power is a major (which somehow seems like an understatement) step to reform things. There had been proposals to remove the superdelegates entirely, but the proposal they went with seems like a nice middle ground.

[smjjames]

Sen. John McCain just passed away...

[Guard Dog]

RIP John McCain. His passing is being met with quite a bit of snark on some of the forums I frequent. I find that unseemly and even a little low class. He served this country as best he knew how. Whether or not he served it well is a decision every American must make for themselves. And opinions will certainly vary. But responding to his passing in a celebratory tone is pretty inappropriate IMO. No one's death should be a cause for celebration. Even the most evil of people. Someone loved them and will miss them. Or mourn for what they might have been. McCain was none of those things. It is not necessary to remember him in admiration or even respect but it's not asking too much to put the invective on hold for a night or two. Just my $.02.

 

For my part I'll say I found him an honorable man. And he may well be the last Republican I will have ever voted for.

[Agiel]

 

 

I'm pretty partial to Eisenhower, since he was really the last President who seemed to understand what the role of the military should be in our society.

 

 

 

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” 

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

Holy **** that is a good quote.

 

world has gone topsy-turvy.  whenever we explain how eisenhower-nixon were the doves and kennedy-lbj were the hawks, we get blank stares and disbelief.  kennedy were elected in large part 'cause o' his rejection o' eisenhower era pacifism.  robert mcnamara's adoption o' metrics for determining success o' a military campaign (body count) were transformative and seeming irreversible as those in the pentagon desirous o' promotion knew they needed show progress and achievement through metrics. 

 

 

 

I should point out that things are a _little_ more complicated than what may seem at a first glance. While it was true that Eisenhower heavily favoured a large draw-down in conventional forces his administration still sought to address the balance of force in Western Europe that favoured the Warsaw Pact by investing heavily in strategic forces. After all, it was Eisenhower's Secretary of State who coined the term "Massive Retaliation," in which the US would respond disproportionately to an offensive action taken against a NATO power with nuclear arms (helped by the fact that in his time the Soviet Union's ability to respond in kind against the US was extremely limited; there wasn't even a guarantee that they would be able to hit targets in the UK). Was this cheaper than a large conventional force stationed in West Germany? Undoubtedly yes. Was it particularly wise if, had the dice rolled a little differently, the Warsaw Pact to call the United States' bluff? Well... probably best not to dwell too much on that prospect if one wants to sleep soundly tonight.

 

 

As for Kennedy it should also be noted that under his administration a bewildering array of white elephant programs started under the Eisenhower administration such as SM-62 Snark and SM-64 Navajo, (surprise surprise, nuclear delivery platforms) were quashed. Granted this was largely done in service of what seemed to be far more long-lasting and useful systems such as the UGM-27 Polaris and LGM-30 Minuteman (the former was the grandfather of what is today considered the gold standard of nuclear deterrence, the UGM-133 D5 Trident II, while a derivative of the latter remains in service today).

Edited August 26, 2018 by Agiel

[Katarack21]

It is a strange feeling to mourn the passing of ones enemy, and having honorable enemies is a blessing all it's own.

John McCain was a relic of a different time. He was conservative, but never "a conservative". He never stooped to racist, homophobic, or classist rhetoric to bolster his position. All of his positions came from a place of principle, where he truly believed in the rightness of what he was doing and that it was the best way to do it. He showed true bravery where it counts, not just under torture but under political and peer pressure as well.

I always fiercely disagreed with his political viewpoints and fought against them, but I've always respected the man. The modern GOP has very little place for people like him, and that's a loss for them.

[Gromnir]

(edit)

 

the 1960 Presidential Platform:

 

In 1796, in America's first contested national election, our Party, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, campaigned on the principles of "The Rights of Man."

Ever since, these four words have underscored our identity with the plain people of America and the world.

 

In periods of national crisis, we Democrats have returned to these words for renewed strength. We return to them today.

 

In 1960, "The Rights of Man" are still the issue. It is our continuing responsibility to provide an effective instrument of political action for every American who seeks to strengthen these rights-everywhere here in America, and everywhere in our 20th Century world.

 

The common danger of mankind is war and the threat of war. Today, three billion human beings live in fear that some rash act or blunder may plunge us all into a nuclear holocaust which will leave only ruined cities, blasted homes, and a poisoned earth and sky.

 

Our objective, however, is not the right to coexist in armed camps on the same planet with totalitarian ideologies; it is the creation of an enduring peace in which the universal values of human dignity, truth, and justice under law are finally secured for all men everywhere on earth.

 

If America is to work effectively for such a peace, we must first restore our national strength-military, political, economic, and moral.

 

National Defense

The new Democratic Administration will recast our military capacity in order to provide forces and weapons of a diversity, balance, and mobility sufficient in quantity and quality to deter both limited and general aggressions.

 

When the Democratic Administration left office in 1953, the United States was the pre-eminent power in the world. Most free nations had confidence in our will and our ability to carry out our commitments to the common defense.

 

Even those who wished us ill respected our power and influence.

 

The Republican Administration has lost that position of pre-eminence. Over the past 7 1/2 years, our military power has steadily declined relative to that of the Russians and the Chinese and their satellites.

 

This is not a partisan election-year charge. It has been persistently made by high officials of the Republican Administration itself. Before Congressional committees they have testified that the Communists will have a dangerous lead in intercontinental missiles through 1963—and that the Republican Administration has no plans to catch up.

 

They have admitted that the Soviet Union leads in the space race—and that they have no plans to catch up.

 

They have also admitted that our conventional military forces, on which we depend for defense in any non-nuclear war, have been dangerously slashed for reasons of "economy"—and that they have no plans to reverse this trend.

 

As a result, our military position today is measured in terms of gaps—missile gap, space gap, limited-war gap.

 

To recover from the errors of the past 7 1/2 years will not be easy.

 

This is the strength that must be erected:

 

1. Deterrent military power such that the Soviet and Chinese leaders will have no doubt that an attack on the United States would surely be followed by their own destruction.

 

2. Balanced conventional military forces which will permit a response graded to the intensity of any threats of aggressive force.

 

3. Continuous modernization of these forces through intensified research and development, including essential programs now slowed down, terminated, suspended, or neglected for lack of budgetary support.

 

A first order of business of a Democratic Administration will be a complete re-examination of the organization of our armed forces.

 

A military organization structure, conceived before the revolution in weapons technology, cannot be suitable for the strategic deterrent, continental defense, limited war, and military alliance requirements of the 1960s.

 

We believe that our armed forces should be organized more nearly on the basis of function, not only to produce greater military strength, but also to eliminate duplication and save substantial sums.

 

We pledge our will, energies, and resources to oppose Communist aggression.

 

Since World War II, it has been clear that our own security must be pursued in concert with that of many other nations.

 

The Democratic Administrations which, in World War II, led in forging a mighty and victorious alliance, took the initiative after the war in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the greatest peacetime alliance in history.

 

This alliance has made it possible to keep Western Europe and the Atlantic Community secure against Communist pressures.

 

Our present system of alliances was begun in a time of an earlier weapons technology when our ability to retaliate against Communist attack required bases all around the periphery of the Soviet Union. Today, because of our continuing weakness in mobile weapons systems and intercontinental missiles, our defenses still depend in part on bases beyond our borders for planes and shorter-range missiles.

 

If an alliance is to be maintained in vigor, its unity must be reflected in shared purposes. Some of our allies have contributed neither devotion to the cause of freedom nor any real military strength.

 

The new Democratic Administration will review our system of pacts and alliances. We shall continue to adhere to our treaty obligations, including the commitment of the UN Charter to resist aggression. But we shall also seek to shift the emphasis of our cooperation from military aid to economic development, wherever this is possible.

 

end

 

sure, there were more to the kennedy platform, but we posted as it were presented, and responding to the growing threat o' china and the soviet union after perceived failure o' republicans to maintain adequate defense were the first and most important issue o' kennedy's presidential run.

 

am not an eisenhower fan.  his response to civil rights issues were shameful, and corruption were rampant during his administration.  we were not a proponent o' MAD nor o' eisenhower's reliance on cia covert operations to influence foreign governments.  however, whether you think MAD were ill-advised and possible suicidal (as does Gromnir) it not change fact that kennedy were responding to perceived eisenhower pacifism. following korean armistice, eisenhower never sent combat troops abroad, and defense spending relative to other potential US antagonists decreased while suffering from notable inefficiency and duplication.  in eisenhower's farewell address, he took the opportunity to warn the nation o' the growing military industrial complex.  

 

this one ain't actual all too complex.  kennedy's platform were first and foremost (literal the first heading) predicated 'pon rejection o' eisenhower to proper respond to the military threat o' the soviets and china.  

 

as to mccain.

 

he were not always honorable as some would wish to (re)imagine.  however, mccain were surprising honest 'bout his failures o' character and he were forthcoming 'bout his political blunders.  he were a flawed man. mccain made mistakes, but am convinced mccain were as committed to service as any man who has served in the senate in the last five decades.

 

 

while we didn't always agree with mccain, am believing he were a decent man. how rare is such in washington these days?