The All Things Political Topic - A conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt

[HoonDing]

Genghis Khan's conquests killed 10% of the world population iirc

Funny thing it all started because some idiot literally killed a Mongolian messenger

Qin dynasty unification death toll is also crazy considering the time period

[Zoraptor]

The 10% is for the Mongol Empire in general rather than Chenghiz specifically. A lot of the deaths were during Kublai Khan's conquest of China.

China's always a bit of a special case, something like Taiping/ Heavenly Kingdom may have killed twice as many people as WW1 but pretty much no one knows about it.

[Gorth]

3 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

The Nobel Peace Prize is extremely interesting in that although you can have bad or irrelevant choices in other fields (like, for instance, Hermann Hesse in literature; not sure if there have been any total misses in the sciences), extraordinarily bad choices in the Peace Prize somehow damage the entire idea of the Nobel.

I don't think there's ever been a worse choice than Kissinger, but then again, realistically there almost can't be.

I can't remember his name, but back then some standup comedian was quoted for saying something along the lines of damn, they are trying to put us out of work (when Kissinger got the "peace" prize)

Edit: the Nobel peace prize has been a bit of a running joke ever since I think?

[Malcador]

7 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I can't remember his name, but back then some standup comedian was quoted for saying something along the lines of damn, they are trying to put us out of work (when Kissinger got the "peace" prize)

Edit: the Nobel peace prize has been a bit of a running joke ever since I think?

Tom Lehrer - 'When Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize, satire died'

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Sarex said:

Idk, where does he stand on the Yugoslav civil war?

Joking aside don't know much about Kissinger, apart from his attitude regarding the wars in Yugoslavia. Saying that he doesn't seem much worse than the people who came before or after him in the US political scene.

 

But dont you think if you admittedly don't know much about a  part of history you shouldn't make comparisons or statements until you have educated yourself about that history?

I appreciate your honesty but it also highlights one of main reasons for this modern day reality of inconsistent and selective outrage around a range of topics and opinions.  Many people who have an opinion dont understand their  own argument or they dont understand the real history of that opinion.  And yet the history is well documented  and available for anyone with a interest

For example take some of the outrage around slavery,  there  are many  people who  think only Europeans committed African slavery.  They literally aren't aware  that Arabs and numerous black tribes were involved in the slave  trade and white people were also enslaved throughout history.   In fact its hard  to think of a   single ancient civilisations that wasn't part  of  the slave trade 

And this truth about slavery is well documented. And what does this tell us? It  tells us that for many people  the facts and truth about  history is not as  important as the ideological or  political  views that people have and  the bias around these views 

 

 

[Malcador]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/venezuela-oil-guyana-essequibo-vote-nicolas-maduro

Exceedingly dumb to do, given the US dislike for the Venezuelan government for so long.

[Gromnir]

1) am thinking it were a mistake to expel santos-- sets a new precedent and one which may be manipulated in the future

santos should have quit, but he didn't. the thing is now you got expulsion for a non-traitor who has not committed a crime or been found guilty while in office.

2) kissinger. well...

keep in mind anthony bourdain would probably not have been able to visit china if not for kissinger, and every person reading this board is living in a far safer world 'cause o' kissinger's undeniably instrumental efforts to normalize relations with china. am doubting anybody here is old enough to remembers (Gromnir ain't even old enough) and few people today has been taught or learned just what normalization meant. on a list o' post ww2 diplomatic achievements, kissinger's role in china has gotta rank near the top, 'cause china was a far greater threat than is north korea today. for centuries, china had two things in abundance: people and famine. china also had nukes. golly, what could possible go wrong? 

@Gorth and Gromnir has both mentioned how the fear o' nuclear apocalypse were omnipresent during our youth. we always knew we were one misunderstanding or mistake away from armageddon but Gromnir didn't particular fear china. (can't speak for Gorth) why? normalized relations changed everything. is literal impossible to convey what it were like to be living during the cold war. is similar impossible to imagine what china sans kissinger's interventions woulda' meant to world stability and safety.

the power politics model of the cold war era remains the manner in which great nations interact--don't kid yourself. kissinger were an amoral and uncompromising advocate o' power politics. kissinger were a bad man, living in a bad time and he deserves your scorn. the recent deceased american diplomat made no effort to find a better way than a soulless and uncompromising application o' power politics stratagems. the thing is, he also made the world safer for billions.

is ok to hate kissinger, but am thinking nowadays he doesn't get near the credit he is entitled to insofar as china normalization alone. many people today see the world in frustratingly simple terms: black and white; oppressors and oppressed; good guys and bad guys; right and wrong. am not sure where the certainty comes from. it should not be impossible to be disgusted by kissinger while simultaneous being impressed by a few o' his achievements.

and heck, we took sh!te for pointing out days after kobe bryant's death that there were ample evidence he committed rape and got away with it. we were told, too soon. respect for the recent deceased. etc. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps am not sure why anthony bourdain's opinion 'bout kissinger is more significant than that o' any obsidian boardie or the rando unintelligible ny cabbie. the deceased chef's opinion is no less worthy than __________, but am always perplexed people see value in celebrity. no special insights from wanting to punch kissinger, so why should we care? we don't get it. also, before the edit we had written, "cause china was a far greater threat than is south korea today." am thinking most k-pop is a crime against humanity, but we wouldn't ever suggest such amounted to a global threat similar to pre-normalization china.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

I don't know who lectured you on Kobe, but I never got the worship for that guy. I felt bad that his daughter, another family, and a pilot went down with him.

[Malcador]

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But dont you think if you admittedly don't know much about a  part of history you shouldn't make comparisons or statements until you have educated yourself about that history?

I appreciate your honesty but it also highlights one of main reasons for this modern day reality of inconsistent and selective outrage around a range of topics and opinions.  Many people who have an opinion dont understand their  own argument or they dont understand the real history of that opinion.  And yet the history is well documented  and available for anyone with a interest

For example take some of the outrage around slavery,  there  are many  people who  think only Europeans committed African slavery.  They literally aren't aware  that Arabs and numerous black tribes were involved in the slave  trade and white people were also enslaved throughout history.   In fact its hard  to think of a   single ancient civilisations that wasn't part  of  the slave trade 

And this truth about slavery is well documented. And what does this tell us? It  tells us that for many people  the facts and truth about  history is not as  important as the ideological or  political  views that people have and  the bias around these views 

 

 

Phew, been a while since you whined about how white people are treated.

[Gromnir]

Expansion adds hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians to Medicaid

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, Gromnir said:

@Gorth and Gromnir has both mentioned how the fear o' nuclear apocalypse were omnipresent during our youth. we always knew we were one misunderstanding or mistake away from armageddon but Gromnir didn't particular fear china. (can't speak for Gorth) why? normalized relations changed everything. is literal impossible to convey what it were like to be living during the cold war. is similar impossible to imagine what china sans kissinger's interventions woulda' meant to world stability and safety.

I don't really remember every having being worried about China in the 70's and 80's (or even the 90's), the "big evil" being Poland and DDR (East Germany), because those were tangible enemies sharing sea borders with Denmark. Amphibious divisions were poised just on the other side of the water. Nobody really expected them to cross the water though, as Denmark would most likely be completely obliterated and left as a glowing crater, in order to secure the water ways between The Baltic Sea and The North Sea to ensure safe passage of the Soviet Navy between their Baltic bases and the Atlantic. You can only stack so many subs in Murmansk... except the odd stray sub being put on display on Swedish rocks (probably not many here who remember the "Whisky on The Rocks" incident)

Kissinger was a follower of realpolitik through and through and I'm personally convinced (in an entirely subjective/opinionated/fact free way), that his overtures to communist China was of no other interest than to create a second front against the Soviet Union. A shame he didn't get the Taiwan issue sorted out at the same time, I'm sure Beijing would have been more open to suggestions at the time when they were still interested in international recognition... the benefits of hindsight.

[Gorth]

I don't often follow US politics, but when BBC puts it up on their front page, it's hard to miss.

Apparently Santos had made enough of a mess that he managed something very rare, uniting Democrats and Republicans

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67593885

 

[Keyrock]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

I don't often follow US politics, but when BBC puts it up on their front page, it's hard to miss.

Apparently Santos had made enough of a mess that he managed something very rare, uniting Democrats and Republicans

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67593885

 

You know he has to be REALLY crooked to be too crooked for Congress.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Keyrock said:

You know he has to be REALLY crooked to be too crooked for Congress.

but not crooked enough to be President?

for too many, expel were a transactional consideration. virtual every gop representative from NY voted to expel santos. why? 'cause they know democrats is gonna be using santos as an example o' what is wrong with the gop from now 'til the 2024 election. gop fighting in biden districts in particular needed to get ahead o' the santos problem.

any o' those same gop Congressmen voiced their outrage at the lies from trump? the current ny civil case against trump and his family has already determined trump is liable for fraud-- trump lies is already legal fact. only thing being determined is extent o' damages trump is gonna need pay. the now forgotten mueller report accused trump o' lying. is so weird how that always gets overlooked. trump testimony were disbelieved by a jury o' his peers in a civil rape case. trump's own attorney has testified before a grand jury stating that the ex-president was fully aware that keeping the government documents requested by the doj in their subpoena were illegal, and yet he did not turn over those documents. don't even get us started on the trump lies about election integrity. oh, and the trump foundation, before the state o' ny finally shut it down, screwed over veterans, orphans and old people for chrissakes. 

santos ripped off possible dozens o' people and lied to thousands o' voters. trump ripped off thousands and lied to millions.

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Malcador said:

Phew, been a while since you whined about how white people are treated.

But it hasnt been a while since you whined about the rules based order 

[Gromnir]

today were arguable the single worst day trump has had in regards to his numerous court cases.

first:

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/01/1216541738/appeals-court-trump-immunity-jan-6-riot-lawsuits

Former President Donald Trump is not immune from being sued over the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, clearing the way for lawsuits filed against him in connection with the deadly riot.

judge luttig thoughts on the matter:

not only did the judge find the appeals court decision persuasive but he did not see any reason why SCOTUS would grant cert if trump appealed.  judge luttig, btw, before he started to criticize trump, were arguable one o' the top three most respected living textualists (conservatives.) am gonna suggest the guy who were most instrumental in getting clarence thomas nominated by bush were luttig. nobody has ever confused luttig with liberals.

also, for those not understanding how the arcane US judicial system operates, appeals court decisions create binding precedent for lower district courts, so were no surprise when...

second:

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/01/1216696071/donald-trump-election-interference-immunity-claims-rejected-tanya-chutkan

Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution in his election interference case in Washington, a federal judge ruled Friday, knocking down the Republican's bid to derail the case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision amounts to a sharp rejection to challenges the Trump defense team had raised to the four-count indictment in advance of a trial expected to center on the Republican's multi-pronged efforts to undo the election won by Democrat Joe Biden.

larry is the preeminent con law scholar-- he literally wrote the book on the subject. that said, mr. tribe clear don't like trump, trump policies and the maga credo in general, so he might be indulging a smidge o' wishful thinking.

luttig and tribe? 

two elder statesman o' the law who on paper appear to be natural adversaries agree trump had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. 

take it for what it's worth.

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

But it hasnt been a while since you whined about the rules based order 

But at least it was relevant. And Sarex pretty clearly implied the look at Kissinger was brief, so wasn't really much to go on anyway.

Will have to read up on the Bangladeshi genocide, never really knew much about that.

[Bartimaeus]

10 hours ago, Gromnir said:

"a trial in which I fully expect him to be convicted, thereby losing much of his current support in the polls"

legal expert maybe, political expert perhaps not so much

[Keyrock]

"Experts" have been predicting Trump's demise for nearly a decade. He's currently as popular as he's ever been. In fairness, that's not even half as long as "experts" have been predicting Putin's demise. How has that turned out?

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Keyrock said:

"Experts" have been predicting Trump's demise for nearly a decade. He's currently as popular as he's ever been. In fairness, that's not even half as long as "experts" have been predicting Putin's demise. How has that turned out?

I  know very few    credible experts who have predicted Putin's  political  demise  because he is an autocrat and there  are  no free   and fair elections in Russia and he controls the courts so he has ensured  his control is insurmountable? The only way he could be removed is through some sort of military coup like  the Wagner insurrection but thats unlikely. No dictators or autocrats ever step down.  They rule  for decades until they die or are forced  to be removed. 

But the US is a Democracy and you see leadership change all  the time and politicians can be charged  in courts if there is evidence,   so Trumps demise would be ending up in jail? But I doubt that is going to happen before the 2024 election

 

 

[Keyrock]

58 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But the US is a Democracy

Disagree.

Trumps demise would be ending up in jail? But I doubt that is going to happen before the 2024 election

It's not even about him ending up in jail, I fully believe he would win the election from behind bars, in fact he would win by an EVEN BIGGER margin from behind bars if he's still eligible. The two things that would stop Trump from winning the 2024 election IMHO are a FELONY conviction (which I HIGHLY doubt they will get) since that would disqualify him from running for PotUS or death (read: assassination). And before you ask, I would not be the least bit surprised if the establishment tries to assassinate The Donald if and when they fail to convict him of a felony.

[BruceVC]

25 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

Disagree.

 

 

It's not even about him ending up in jail, I fully believe he would win the election from behind bars, in fact he would win by an EVEN BIGGER margin from behind bars if he's still eligible. The two things that would stop Trump from winning the 2024 election IMHO are a FELONY conviction (which I HIGHLY doubt they will get) since that would disqualify him from running for PotUS or death (read: assassination). And before you ask, I would not be the least bit surprised if the establishment tries to assassinate The Donald if and when they fail to convict him of a felony.

If the US is not a Democracy what do you consider it to be?

And who do think would try to assassinate Trump, I mean specifically? I find that hard to believe 

 

[ShadySands]

Didn't some ivy determine that we are an oligarchy?

[BruceVC]

27 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Didn't some ivy determine that we are an oligarchy?

But based on what evidence? The US doesn't fit the description of an oligarchy because US  politicians  and presidents come and go  based on votes and you even have different groups within the established parties like MAGA  Republicans or progressive Democrats that have political  influence

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/oligarchy/

[Keyrock]

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

If the US is not a Democracy what do you consider it to be?

 

Oligarchy. On the surface, the US is a federal republic and the elected politicians run the country. In reality, a large percentage of them are career politicians. Politicians should, if this were a truly democratic system, be beholden to their constituents and there are no doubt a few good men and women in Washington that are just that. The problem is that the career politicians aren't there to meet the needs of their constituents, they are there to do the bidding of the donor class since they are the primary funders of their reelection campaigns and the goal of a career politician is to keep getting reelected. The donor class are a group of ludicrously wealthy elites, these are your oligarchs. While they may not directly be running the country, they may as well be given that career politicians cater to them, not to peons like me.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Keyrock