The All Things Political Topic - new edition

[xzar_monty]

14 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

And I always wonder if Obama was being charged what the same people would be saying?

Here's something that's useful for everyone to know: psychological studies indicate that people, as a rule, want justice to be served. However, when they have to choose either justice being served or their friend getting/remaining out of trouble, they overwhelmingly choose the latter. It is precisely this dynamic that explains the Larry Nassar case: horrendous as his child-molesting crimes were, people around him, those that he worked with and was friends with, didn't want him to get into trouble. It is very sad. (So, from this you can probably guess what the same people would be saying about Obama.)

There are weaker versions of this strange dynamic, too. One good example would be Jordan Peterson. He is an extremely staunch supporter of being truthful: he constantly stresses how important it is to be truthful and to not lie. So far so good. However, politically he happens to be a right-wing conservative, and from this it follows that whenever he discusses Trump, he is happy to ignore Trump's constant lying about anything and everything. He is also happy to ignore this enormous contradiction in his own behaviour. (If there is evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to see it.)

Edited June 12, 2023 by xzar_monty

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Here's something that's useful for everyone to know: psychological studies indicate that people, as a rule, want justice to be served. However, when they have to choose either justice being served or their friend getting/remaining out of trouble, they overwhelmingly choose the latter. It is precisely this dynamic that explains the Larry Nassar case: horrendous as his child-molesting crimes were, people around him, those that he worked with and was friends with, didn't want him to get into trouble. It is very sad. (So, from this you can probably guess what the same people would be saying about Obama.)

There are weaker versions of this strange dynamic, too. One good example would be Jordan Peterson. He is an extremely staunch supporter of being truthful: he constantly stresses how important it is to be truthful and to not lie. So far so good. However, politically he happens to be a right-wing conservative, and from this it follows that whenever he discusses Trump, he is happy to ignore Trump's constant lying about anything and everything. He is also happy to ignore this enormous contradiction in his own behaviour. (If there is evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to see it.)

I agree with your first paragraph

But I have watched  lots of Jordan Peterson videos and I agree with much of what he says but not everything. He has dozens and dozens of podcasts and he has had many interviews and debates but I cant recall him ever  debating or ignoring Trumps grandstanding and theater. Do you have the specific video or interview because I would like to understand what he said or didnt say?

 

[Pidesco]

What exact cases or allegations regarding Trump were untrue?

[Chilloutman]

56 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

What exact cases or allegations regarding Trump were untrue?

That whole Russia gate story? 

[xzar_monty]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But I have watched  lots of Jordan Peterson videos and I agree with much of what he says but not everything. He has dozens and dozens of podcasts and he has had many interviews and debates but I cant recall him ever  debating or ignoring Trumps grandstanding and theater. Do you have the specific video or interview because I would like to understand what he said or didnt say?

It is impossible to point to a specific video or interview, simply because the problem is in ignoring. My sense is that he never once even suggests that Trump's constant and outright lying in any way invalidates him (Trump), and that is something he definitely should say because he is so adamantly against lying. He should be saying something along the lines of "This man is a liar, stay away from him", but he never does anything of the sort -- that I know of. Compare this to how keen he is to point out untruths elsewhere, in people who disagree with his political views. That's not very honest, I would say, and it looks particularly bad because he makes such a show about honesty.

This truthful stance of course didn't keep Peterson from claiming "I'm an evolutionary biologist" in a BBC interview, although he is nothing of the sort -- he's a psychologist.

Edited June 12, 2023 by xzar_monty

[Hurlshort]

It's weird that anyone treats Trump or Obama as a friend. Don't trust tge politicians, people.

[uuuhhii]

11 minutes ago, Hurlshort said:

It's weird that anyone treats Trump or Obama as a friend. Don't trust tge politicians, people.

people can be parasocial with any type of celebrity

remember a video where someone yell for trump to save them while being arrested

pretty sure they are talking to their imaginary best friend jojo rabit style instead of the actual person

[Gromnir]

there is intelligent people who still believe mueller exonerated trump? possible. unlikely. mueller's report were extreme damning for trump on multiple levels. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-falsely-claims-mueller-exonerated-him

Bipartisan Senate Report Offers Strongest Evidence Yet that Trump Lied to Mueller

Judge sharply rebukes Barr’s handling of Mueller report

the trump campaign met with russians expecting to get dirt on hillary but there weren't enough evidence for a conspiracy charge in part 'cause trump and his campaign lied or witheld information necessary for mueller and with trump as President it were not possible to compel compliance or to prosecute the lies. were also a whole lotta evidence o' trump obstruction but again, with trump being President, meuller literal could not charge or accuse him o' a crime. 

barr (successful) gaslit before the mueller report and multiple federal judges admonished him for lying to the public and the Courts regarding the report. worse, Congressional democrats, instead o' focusing on how damning were the report to trump even w/o a recommendation o' criminal prosecution, a prosecution which were never on the table btw, kept trying to get mueller to say trump had done illegal. wasted effort. mueller's report painted trump as bumbling and mendacious actor. mueller cautioned that if Congress did not pay attention and take serious the very real efforts o' a US political campaign to solicit and foreign interference in a US election, future elections would be endangered. and so it goes.

jack smith's indictment is arguable less damning than were the mueller report. is actual less evidence o' obstruction in the current indictment than were memorialized in the mueller report and again, the corruption o' trump as it relates to the "russia hoax" *snort* established a terrible precedent which makes it possible for future US Presidential candidates to utilize foreign influence to interfere with national elections.  

and am sick to death o' hearing 'bout "hillary's emails." takes more willful stoopid to invoke the hillary email situation when speaking o' trump's current problems. 

after considerable investigation, there were never any evidence o' willful obstruction by hillary. is the reason why @Wrath of Dagon and others were trying to convince themselves that hillary shoulda' been prosecuted under the gross negligence aspect o' the relevant statutes. however, comey, for all his faults, did a fair job o' illustrating the law regarding mishandling and retention o' government intelligence.

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice."

a subsequent ig report during the trump admin found comey screwed the pooch in his public handling o' the hillary emails but that he were correct about the law and that hillary should not have been prosecuted. 

ironic, saw this on cnn a few days past:

for those who likely do not recall, gonzalez were the bush administration's version o' hillary's emails.

from the aforementioned ig report:

c. Previous Section 793(f)(1) Declinations
The Midyear prosecutors also reviewed at least two previous investigations
where prosecution was declined under the gross negligence provision in Section
793(f)(1). The Midyear prosecutors told us that these declinations informed their
understanding of the Department’s historical approach to Section 793(f)(1). We
discuss these previous declinations below.

Gonzales Declination Decision

One of these previous cases involved an OIG investigation into the
mishandling of documents containing highly classified, compartmented information
about a National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program by former White
House Counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In 2004, while Gonzales

was the White House Counsel, he took handwritten notes memorializing a meeting
about the legality of the NSA program. The notes included operational details
about the program, including its compartmented codeword. Although Gonzales did
not mark the notes as classified, he said that he used two envelopes to doublewrap the notes and may have written an abbreviation for the codeword on the inner
envelope. On the outer envelope, Gonzales said that he wrote “AG – EYES ONLY –
TOP SECRET.” He stored these notes in a safe in the West Wing of the White House
and said that he took them with him when he became the Attorney General in
February 2005. Gonzales said that he did not recall where he stored the notes after
removing them from the White House, but that he may have taken them home.
Gonzales also stored the notes and several other documents containing TS//SCI
classification markings in a safe in the Attorney General’s office that was not
approved to hold such materials.

The OIG referred investigative findings to NSD for a prosecutive decision.
According to information reviewed by the OIG, on August 19, 2008, NSD analyzed
Gonzales’ handling of the notes under the gross negligence provision in section
793(f)(1). NSD concluded that prosecutors likely could show that the documents
were removed from their proper place of custody, but that the question was
whether that removal constituted “gross negligence.” After discussing the
legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), NSD stated that the government likely
would have to prove that Gonzales’ conduct was “criminally reckless” to establish
that he acted with gross negligence under Section 793(f)(1). NSD concluded that
Gonzales’ inability to recall precisely where he stored the notes detracted from
prosecutors’ ability to “show a state of mind approaching ‘deliberate intention’ to
remove classified documents from a secure location.”

there were no prosecution o' gonzales and that earlier declination decision were one o' a couple similar declination conclusions which guided the doj in their ultimate conclusion to not pursue criminal charges against clinton. nobody mentions gonzalez, bush's attorney general and a widely recognized republican, serious undermines the suggestion hillary were treated different, special or in some way benefited from a partisan doj process. 

witch hunt? trump were given more than a year to return documents which regardless o' the classification red herring were documents which did not belong to trump. when the national archives finally lost patience with trump and referred the matter o' document retrieval to the fbi, not only did trump lie, but he attempted to have his attorney lie on his behalf. is audio recordings o' trump discussing the mishandling o' documents and is video o' him physical going through boxes with national secrets. refer back to the earlier comey comments in this post for the kinda documents cases which result in fed prosecutions. in the trump case there is considerable evidence o' both obstruction as well as intentional mishandling. 

oh, and...

etc.

am not knowing what the affirmative defenses o' trump may be, but nothing mentioned public by trump as yet would constitute a meaningful defense or an excuse for his actions. the clinton AND gonzales situations were fundamental different, lacking the brazen willfulness and p00p storm o' evidence provided in the jack smith indictment, so those invoking hillary's emails is either ignorant o' truth or intentional mischaracterizing the facts regarding the former secretary of state's admitted Colossal and mind boggling stoopid handling of state secrets on her private server. tell us hillary's brobdinagian stoopid and cavalier handling o' sensitive US info should have excluded her from consideration as a legit candidate for the Presidency o' the US and we would have a difficult time coming up with a decent rebuttal. even so, hillary emails so ≠ trump mar-a-lago documents.

oh, and do we need mention how not a defense is the Presidential records act for trump? the act says that trump, as a former President, had a duty to return documents to the US. am not sure how such helps trump.

the so-called sock drawer case is also a red herring. the state secrets trump were hoarding in his public accessibly resort were not personal recordings or the result o' trump's individual work product. is not possible to legitimate argue that somehow an unholy alchemy o' the Presidential records act and the sock drawer case result in state secrets being transformed into trump's personal property when he left office. sorry, but that argument is utter nonsense although am having seen it made a few times by republican figures who know better.

did we miss anything? 

all o' which ignores the very real possibility trump will be found not guilty. we keep reminding folks all trump needs is one florida juror who believes the feds were indeed involved in a witch hunt, manufacturing evidence... oh and what about hillary's emails? am warning in advance a not guilty verdict is more than just possible. 

aside am thinking @Agiel deserves credit as before trump were elected he voiced concerns 'bout trump handling nuclear secrets. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Pidesco]

[BruceVC]

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/americas/colombia-children-amazon-found-intl-latam/index.html

Here is a good news story, a group of children survived for 40 days in the Colombian jungle before being rescued 

What a survival story  

[Gromnir]

one more thought on the trump documents case, albeit one we has mentioned previous: discussing the relevant law o' the mar-a-lago documents case is itself beneficial deflection for trump.

'cause is now a legal matter, near everybody in media and politics is talking 'bout the law o' the espionage act(s) and Presidential records and article ii powers. am not sure how many times we need repeat, but legal is not same as right. will exoneration of trump in a court of law make anybody here change their opinion 'bout whether trump's hoarding o' the nation's secrets in his hotel were wise... right?  should it? whether trump goes to prison or not is largely incidental to the issue o' whether trump's handling o' the sooper-secret documents as right or wrong.

...

some fraction o' a percent o' americans understand the legal minutiae o' the espionage act and its subsequent amendments, but every tv lawyer and US Congressman is sharing their expertise claiming some section coupled with specific evidence dooms trump, or in the alternative, makes charging trump unjust. yeah, whether trump eventual goes to prison may indeed hinge on some technical aspect o' how SCOTUS reads dicta from a single obscure case nobody can recall at this moment, but how does such impact the question o' whether it were ok for a former President to knowing take and keep highly sensitive national defense intelligence down with him to mar-a-lago? 

IF trump had sooper secret documents at mar-a-lago and he knew he had such documents when the national archives and fbi asked for their return... and IF trump did act to hide and mislead his attorneys as well as the feds regarding those documents in his possession, then does it matter if there is some kinda legal loophole for ex Presidents clarence thomas imagines into being IF you are trying to decide whether trump did right or wrong?

the only meaningful defense we see for trump when addressing right v. wrong is whether all the evidence jack smith presented (more than a few facts already admitted by trump or established previous in proceedings before the grand jury) is real or fantasy. as such near the entire legal debate is as much deflection as is invoking hillary's emails. 

aside, 'cause we often share useless trivia: the blindfold added to the statues o' roman or greek goddess o' justice weren't a thing until the 16th century and it started as satire. to show how ignorant o' injustice were the law, people in europe began adding blindfolds to statues o' lady justice. social commentary. however, in a classic own the libs  move, the powers that be began constructing lady justice with blindfolds already carved in stone and reimaging as a positive attribute.

so it goes.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-barr-trump-toast-damning-classified-docs-case-2023-6

Former AG Barr has been very critical of Trump around the classified documents charges and he raised this is on FOX news

I have always liked Barr and I found him to be articulate, knowledgeable  and convincing with his legal explanations and many  of his decisions. I remember @Gromnir never liked  him and use to say he was guilty of various infringements around the Constitution especially around the BLM protests in Portland  and the Federal government  intervention to end the months of violent protests and criminality that the Democrat mayor allowed 

Anyway the point being Barr is consistent with the interpretation of the law and is not a Trump yes-man 

To quote from the link

" Former Attorney General Bill Barr said his ex-boss, former President Donald Trump, is "toast" if even some of the allegations that he illegally took classified documents on his way out of the White House are true. 

Barr told Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday that it was "ridiculous" to portray Trump as a victim of a witch hunt in the federal case. 

"I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were, frankly," Barr said in the interview Sunday. "So, the government's agenda was to get those, protect those documents, and get them out, and I think it was perfectly appropriate to do that."

 

 

 

[Raithe]

Always good for a little entertainment:

 

[Gromnir]

...

we have sailed beyond the edge of the map (edit:)... again. hic sunt dracones.

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

Honestly surprised that wasn't faked.

[Gromnir]

6 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Honestly surprised that wasn't faked.

we checked before posting 'cause our first reaction were it could not be legit.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

On 6/13/2023 at 7:42 AM, Raithe said:

Always good for a little entertainment:

as a general rule, the guy in the video does a good job o' covering basics.

but...

couple quibbles... or maybe additions.

1) the kinda notes taken by trump attorney 1 (corcoran) were atypical.

2) christina bob gets only the most brief mention in the video.

for decades we took copious notes. is indeed an essential practice to protect client and to protect self. however, memorialize exact comments and gestures o' a client in the manner corcoran did were not an effort to advance trump's case and to make certain corcoran's memory could be suitable refreshed in the future regarding pivotal questions o' law and fact when advancing trump's interests. trump attorney 1 were taking the kinda notes most lawyers need never consider, 'cause were obvious corcoran weren't memorializing just to make sure a proper record o' happenings took place but rather were meant to insulate him from possible future prosecution.  corcoran's note taking were so outside the scope o' normal note taking and am thinking such shoulda' been mentioned.

also, and perhaps this is the kinda thing you are more likely to recognize only if you has witnessed more than a few trials and are knowing how attorneys ordinary behave, but the admitted brief mention o' trump attorney 3 in the indictment is disproportionate important. the legaleagle guy failed to describe the significance o' trump attorney 1 not signing off on the june 3, 2022 certification that trump were in compliance with the grand jury subpoena to be handing over all documents with classified markings. bobb, trump attorney 3, made the certification 'cause trump attorney 1 refused to do so. after corcoran searched for remaining documents with classified markings and he sealed the documents he found in a redweld folder, he refused to sign the certification. 

 https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

am highly recommending reading pp 21-26 if nothing else. those pages illustrate the clumsy shell game nauta and trump alleged engaged in to hide documents from trump attorney 1. in spite o' being the attorney who conducted the search for documents, corcoran called bobb to act as custodian o' documents and to sign the certification regarding the search.

...

corcoran is gonna eventual be called as a prosecution witness and he is gonna need testify 'bout his unusual note taking as well as his refusal to certify the search he completed. explain why he took unusual notes and refused to sign is gonna be memorable. noteworthy. 

side note: have seen tv lawyers mention that judge aileen cannon could throw out corcoran's testimony as inadmissible. false. before corcoran testified in front o' the grand jury there were already a hearing insofar as admissibility and aileen cannon is stuck with that ruling. IF trump is found guilty, then am certain his team is gonna appeal the conviction based at least in part o' the decision to pierce attorney-client privilege, so even if there is a conviction o' trump the story won't end immediate; a nightmare for a future date. however, am not seeing any way judge cannon could exclude corcoran testimony, and am thinking corcoran will be extreme compelling for the prosecution.

regardless, legaleagle did a better than fair job o' explaining. thanks for the link.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

an admitted obscure anniversary:

june 14, 1953, President Eisenhower (republican) delivers commencement speech at dartmouth

speech begins at 22:25. am highly recommending listening at least for a couple minutes from 28:20.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

What Iowa Republicans are thinking after Trump’s federal indictment

 

 

[Keyrock]

RFK Jr on The Joe Rogan Experience

[Keyrock]

LOL at the DNC trying to switch the first primary to South Carolina instead of New Hampshire because they fear losing in NH to RFK, which would not exactly inspire confidence in the already unpopular sitting president.

In elephant news, Trump's popularity has only increased after the indictment, which was hilariously predictable. Smear campaigns don't work against Trump. Nobody, not even his most ardent supporters, are under the illusion that he's a squeaky clean guy.

The most hilarious outcome would be Trump winning the presidency then pardoning himself. I'm almost as opposed to Trump winning as I am to Biden winning, but from a purely comedic standpoint, it would be something to behold.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Keyrock

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, uh, I don't think Biden has much to worry about with regards to that crackpot, at least at this particular moment. Even somebody who heavily distrusts polling* should probably feel a little skeptical when it's a 60 point difference.

*Which is almost always the result of their inability to parse statistical information and how fuzzy probabilities regarding uncertain outcomes work. But people going "my candidate was given a 20% chance to win and they did just barely win so EVERYTHING IS A LIE AND THE POLLERS ARE STUPID [even though that's literally the exact outcome that the 20% was accounting for]" is always pretty hilarious.

On 6/15/2023 at 6:06 PM, Gromnir said:

What Iowa Republicans are thinking after Trump’s federal indictment

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

rfk jr and rogan? is there enough aluminum to craft the hats both these jokers need? rogan ain't educated enough or is too immersed in conspiracy crazy to push back on the obvious untruths kennedy spews.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/06/rfk-jr-makes-unfounded-claims-about-mass-shootings-covid-19-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes/?sh=41f1b6753acc

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-conspiracy-theory-twitter-elon-musk-1234747479/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/05/rfk-jr-democratic-primary-biden/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/08/robert-kennedy-jr-measles-vaccines-226798/

etc.

 was only able to take so much bs about kennedy from the rogan lovefest. revisionist history 'bout jfk didn't help neither. after all, eisenhower (republican) were the "dove" who had warned about the military industrial complex and kennedy's literal number one campaign issue in 1960 were national defense (long, but if you don't read, you won't learn nothing): 

Spoiler

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.

the idea the military industrial complex were out to get kennedy only works 'cause +90% o' americans don't recall or never learned much 'bout kennedy save the post dallas revisionism which became popularized following the assassination. kennedy were the freaking golden goose for the military industrial complex.

whatever.

and trump's popularity increased with republicans after the indictment.  is terrible, and is bad for america, but democrat leadership actual wants trump to be the republican candidate 'cause he is the one guy democrats, and an Increasing number of independents, will crawl across broken glass to vote against. yeah, with trump as the gop candidate, the rhetoric becomes more extreme and chances for violence increase, but biden is not a good candidate and democrats perhaps need an existential crisis alternative to win. just as with the midterms, democrats is willing to risk extremism and violence to actual aid the most fringy gop candidates 'cuase recent history has changed the democrat voting dynamic.  in the past, democrats only bothered to come out and vote if they were hopeful or enthusiastic about a candidate. now, democrats will vote if they are afraid... afraid enough. 

and yeah, there is indeed a chance trump gets a second term in part 'cause biden is so not great for democrats. pretend trump can't win 'cause he lost in 2020 is naïve. so democrats quiet cheering as trump solidifies his frontrunner status with the gop is questionable even if it might be a winning strategy.

COVID-19 research updates: does wearing tinfoil hats pose neurodegenerative threats to conspiracists and the general public?

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 16, 2023 by Gromnir

[Keyrock]

8 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

rfk jr and rogan? is there enough aluminum to craft the hats both these jokers need? rogan ain't educated enough or is too immersed in conspiracy crazy to push back on the obvious untruths kennedy spews.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/06/rfk-jr-makes-unfounded-claims-about-mass-shootings-covid-19-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes/?sh=41f1b6753acc

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-conspiracy-theory-twitter-elon-musk-1234747479/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/05/rfk-jr-democratic-primary-biden/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/08/robert-kennedy-jr-measles-vaccines-226798/

etc.

 was only able to take so much bs about kennedy from the rogan lovefest. revisionist history 'bout jfk didn't help neither. after all, eisenhower (republican) were the "dove" who had warned about the military industrial complex and kennedy's literal number one campaign issue in 1960 were national defense (long, but if you don't read, you won't learn nothing): 

  Reveal hidden contents

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.

the idea the military industrial complex were out to get kennedy only works 'cause +90% o' americans don't recall or never learned much 'bout kennedy save the post dallas revisionism which became popularized following the assassination. kennedy were the freaking golden goose for the military industrial complex.

whatever.

and trump's popularity increased with republicans after the indictment.  is terrible, and is bad for america, but democrat leadership actual wants trump to be the republican candidate 'cause he is the one guy democrats, and an Increasing number of independents, will crawl across broken glass to vote against. yeah, with trump as the gop candidate, the rhetoric becomes more extreme and chances for violence increase, but biden is not a good candidate and democrats perhaps need an existential crisis alternative to win. just as with the midterms, democrats is willing to risk extremism and violence to actual aid the most fringy gop candidates 'cuase recent history has changed the democrat voting dynamic.  in the past, democrats only bothered to come out and vote if they were hopeful or enthusiastic about a candidate. now, democrats will vote if they are afraid... afraid enough. 

and yeah, there is indeed a chance trump gets a second term in part 'cause biden is so not great for democrats. pretend trump can't win 'cause he lost in 2020 is naïve. so democrats quiet cheering as trump solidifies his frontrunner status with the gop is questionable even if it might be a winning strategy.

COVID-19 research updates: does wearing tinfoil hats pose neurodegenerative threats to conspiracists and the general public?

HA! Good Fun!

Yeah, from a person that seems to be, in their own mind, at least, an expert on LITERALLY EVERYTHING, I guess I should just take your word as gospel. I won't, I'm not that stupid.

Anyway, listen to the interview, it's 3 hours long, that's how Joe Rogan does it so that people can actually have a conversation and not just compete for 5 second sound bites and "gotcha moments" then make up your own mind. Or don't and pretend you know what was said in said interview. Have a nice day.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Keyrock

[Bartimaeus]

21 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

now, democrats will vote if they are afraid... afraid enough. 

Man, if that ain't the truth - at least for the section of people who don't reliably vote by nature.

21 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

and trump's popularity increased with republicans after the indictment.  is terrible, and is bad for america, but democrat leadership actual wants trump to be the republican candidate 'cause he is the one guy democrats, and an Increasing number of independents, will crawl across broken glass to vote against. yeah, with trump as the gop candidate, the rhetoric becomes more extreme and chances for violence increase, but biden is not a good candidate and democrats perhaps need an existential crisis alternative to win. just as with the midterms, democrats is willing to risk extremism and violence to actual aid the most fringy gop candidates 'cuase recent history has changed the democrat voting dynamic.  in the past, democrats only bothered to come out and vote if they were hopeful or enthusiastic about a candidate. now, democrats will vote if they are afraid... afraid enough. 

and yeah, there is indeed a chance trump gets a second term in part 'cause biden is so not great for democrats. pretend trump can't win 'cause he lost in 2020 is naïve. so democrats quiet cheering as trump solidifies his frontrunner status with the gop is questionable even if it might be a winning strategy.

It's definitely a double-edged sword: both sides are hyper-energized to vote when Trump is on the ballot. It creates weird and difficult to predict results in both directions, and I'm not super keen on an unpopular Biden (although he was already unpopular leading up to 2020's election anyways) facing him off again, which I think I've been making mention of here on the Obsidian forums practically since the day Biden won the last election. I want the Trump era of U.S. politics to be over and done with, but sadly, I think it's here to stay one way or another for the foreseeable future: the entire political paradigm has changed so much we'll be suffering the effects for at least the next decade (...and most likely a lot longer after even that).

Edited June 17, 2023 by Bartimaeus