View Full Version : Another War?
gimmethesimplelife
1-3-20, 3:27pm
Does this ever end? Now there are new tensions with Iran and the chance of military conflict. I've had my fill.....what about the rest of you? Rob
My daughter is 23, and I think we’ve been at war most of her life.
Teacher Terry
1-3-20, 3:42pm
There’s some speculation that trump would like a war so he could say we cannot have elections. I doubt he could do that so I won’t worry about it. Yes I am sick of all the killing. My stepson is a pilot in the guard and I worry about him.
There’s some speculation that trump would like a war so he could say we cannot have elections. I doubt he could do that ...
I don't see how that would even work.
And heck, we had elections in the middle of the Civil War.
He could declare martial law. This seems like 1) a way to forestall impeachment/further investigations into his dirty dealings, 2) positioning himself as a "wartime candidate" for political gain. He does nothing, nothing, that doesn't benefit him personally. It's been pointed out that this was the assassination of an Iranian-level official, and pretty much unprecedented. If we're going after international bad actors, I have a list--and they're mostly Trump cronies.
3068
He could declare martial law.
Martial law doesn't work like that though.
He could declare martial law.
Ha, Ha! Now that's funny.
Rehnquist's book on the topic is quite nice.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71WQpwWi46L.jpg
Looks interesting. I'm sure Trump would like to do away with civil liberties in general. I'm thankful we have the ACLU.
I once said Trump was our Berlusconi, but I think now that he's our Caligula.
I guess we're living in those dread "interesting times."
It seems like we were getting along reasonably well with Iran back in the Obama years.
I think Iran would be silly to launch any sort of traditional military assault, but a cyber, biological, or terrorist attack...?
Maybe someone should tell Trump that his enemy John McCain used to sing "Bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann." That might calm him down.
It seems like we were getting along reasonably well with Iran back in the Obama years.
Yes, they were quite happy with us as long as we were sending them plane loads of unmarked bills they could use to finance their terror operations in Iraq and Syria.
It seems like we were getting along reasonably well with Iran back in the Obama years.
That was when we had a functional state department and National Security Council, and we observed the Iran Nuclear Deal Framework.
flowerseverywhere
1-3-20, 8:35pm
He could declare martial law. This seems like 1) a way to forestall impeachment/further investigations into his dirty dealings, 2) positioning himself as a "wartime candidate" for political gain. He does nothing, nothing, that doesn't benefit him personally. It's been pointed out that this was the assassination of an Iranian-level official, and pretty much unprecedented. If we're going after international bad actors, I have a list--and they're mostly Trump cronies.
3068
i have a neighbor who told me when Obama was elected to a second term he was going to declare martial law, send in troops to confiscate everyone’s weapons and ammunition’s and cancel future elections. Ammunition was in very short supply as hysteria had people convinced of intent to take weapons away and their need to defend themselves. Really truly this happened.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–13_United_States_ammunition_shortage
flowerseverywhere
1-3-20, 8:42pm
We are sending troops, and getting civilians out. War may be on the radar for the US and who knows what type of retaliation will follow.
And don’t forget Donald putting a lot of tweets out saying Obama would start a war to get re-elected. Maybe he just thought of that and decided it isn’t so bad an idea after all. Except for the death and destruction. But hey, what’s a little collateral damage if the Donald can get re-elected. Certainly no trump or Kushner would ever go off to war
https://www.businessinsider.com/old-trump-tweets-emerge-claim-obama-wanted-war-iran-2020-1
What should a Commander In Chief do when militants attack and siege US sovereign soil? It was a sad day the last time that happened and our Commander In Chief and Secretary Of State took the 3am call but then went back to sleep while our Ambassador and his security detail were killed. I'll bet this latest group is pissed that they didn't get the same cooperation.
The reason T has given for the attack is that Soleimani was responsible for hundreds of American deaths and was planning imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and other Americans. With Trump's history a person doesn't know if this is real or something he dreamed up, like his inauguration crowds, or a conspiracy heard on talk radio. Maybe it's another "weapons of mass destruction" excuse to escalate tensions and gain influence in the election or middle eastern politics. Killing the Iran's top military general and by some, a national hero, could much more than retaliation or maybe not. His hawkish minions have probably been itching for a fight for some time and looking for an excuse. I don't trust the guy.
What should a Commander In Chief do when militants attack and siege US sovereign soil?
It's nice this time to see senior military leadership perish, instead of the young folks more commonly used as cannon fodder.
It's nice this time to see senior military leadership perish, instead of the young folks more commonly used as cannon fodder.
Assuming there is some sort of Iranian retaliation involving loss of American lives, it will probably be less selective.
What should a Commander In Chief do when militants attack and siege US sovereign soil? It was a sad day the last time that happened and our Commander In Chief and Secretary Of State took the 3am call but then went back to sleep while our Ambassador and his security detail were killed. I'll bet this latest group is pissed that they didn't get the same cooperation.
It's sad to see that our "commander in chief" threw an agreement regarding nuclear arms that included multiple other countries out the window to create a situation where now we'll be having to go it alone in defending ourselves. None of our allies are likely to want to participate in this sad pathetic situation so I guess we'll have to go it alone. Yay for dead american soldiers???
The deal does not seem to have slowed the Iranian nuclear program, however much the signatories would like to pretend otherwise. Most of our allies have even less capability to project power in the region than they did in the nineties even if the will was there. The British couldn't get much interest in their tanker escort proposal after the recent seizure.
With the economic and internal dissent problems Iran is currently experiencing, I would hope a major new commitment in the region would not be necessary to keep them off balance. Trump's recent pullback from Syria, while shameful, would seem to indicate he is not interested in a new major involvement.
flowerseverywhere
1-4-20, 4:04am
What should a Commander In Chief do when militants attack and siege US sovereign soil? It was a sad day the last time that happened and our Commander In Chief and Secretary Of State took the 3am call but then went back to sleep while our Ambassador and his security detail were killed. I'll bet this latest group is pissed that they didn't get the same cooperation.
i am not defending the Clinton/Obama era mistakes. However consulting with Lindsay Graham and Donald Jr. and who knows who else at Mar a Largo without informing the Congressional and Senate leaders before or even after the strike seems not the way to do things. Graham did not deny this and Jr. sent out an ominous tweet before the attack. While Trump prefers his military not to be captured, I prefer our leader to follow some type of established protocol. I only hope he followed the advice of our top military brass who have spent their lives studying and seeing firsthand military operations and has a clear exit strategy. Because as he claimed, he does not know more than the generals. The last thing we need is world war three or a never ending wars like we have now. I just cannot see how once we get involved with these religious zealots how there will ever be an end. But then again, Trump does have the nuclear codes and I am not confident he would show much restraint if insulted or egged on. Between the Middle East and N Korea threatening i hold little hope.
I think it's very interesting to read the history of our relations with Iran going back to the 50s. We really need to stop poking our fingers where they don't belong in order to assert power and "protect our interests".
It's sad to see that our "commander in chief" threw an agreement regarding nuclear arms that included multiple other countries out the window to create a situation where now we'll be having to go it alone in defending ourselves. None of our allies are likely to want to participate in this sad pathetic situation so I guess we'll have to go it alone. Yay for dead american soldiers???
Exactly. IMO, Trump ginned up a phony threat to get the heat off himself, as he predicted President Obama would do to get re-elected. If he can do anything he wants, he can declare martial law or the equivalent--he certainly has no respect for our Constitution.
If he can do anything he wants, he can declare martial law or the equivalent-
Well, he can't *really* do that, not with this remaining the United States.
What precisely do you mean by "martial law"?
I mean, he *could* declare himself President-for-Life tomorrow, and disband Congress, but that seems outside the bounds of our system, and would likely have some repercussions.
Well, he can't *really* do that, not with this remaining the United States.
What precisely do you mean by "martial law"?
I mean, he *could* declare himself President-for-Life tomorrow, and disband Congress, but that seems outside the bounds of our system, and would likely have some repercussions.
I hope you're right. I would put nothing past him (and Putin, his puppet master); he's basically ignoring Congress already. I hope repercussions come with the next election--at this point, he seems unstoppable.
-at this point, he seems unstoppable.
Unstoppable? His approval numbers wouldn’t seem to indicate that. The media and popular culture manufacturers seem pretty much up in arms against him. The federal bureaucracy seems to regard him as the enemy. The military consensus seems to be one of polite disrespect. The House has spared no expense searching for a rope to hang him. What makes him such an irresistible force?
Where do these perfervid fantasies of coups and martial law come from? It would seem that even a marginally acceptable opponent could knock him off his perch in November.
Well, he does routinely talk about being president for more than 8 years. He claims he's joking, but given that he is completely lacking a sense of humor he probably actually means it and would make it happen if he could come up with some way to do it.
Well, he does routinely talk about being president for more than 8 years. He claims he's joking, but given that he is completely lacking a sense of humor he probably actually means it and would make it happen if he could come up with some way to do it.
Perhaps, but if a bloated ego and poor impulse control were all it took to be unstoppable, Bill Clinton would still be President.
What is it about our current clownish incumbent that drives otherwise rational people to rant about some kind of putsch? Why such a lack of faith in our institutions and his political opposition? What is it about him that triggers such derangement?
Teacher Terry
1-4-20, 3:22pm
Maybe because we have never had a unhinged maniac that expresses desire to be a dictator and admires them for a president.
Perhaps, but if a bloated ego and poor impulse control were all it took to be unstoppable, Bill Clinton would still be President.
What is it about our current clownish incumbent that drives otherwise rational people to rant about some kind of putsch? Why such a lack of faith in our institutions and his political opposition?
I think for me it reinforces how little I can trust our government. I know that politics is cloak-and-daggers and we are always being misinformed and misled by people in power who can weave a credible story to advance their interests, but the blatant lies of this president give me a hopeless feeling about ever really being sure about the truth.
It's disorienting.
Maybe because we have never had a unhinged maniac that expresses desire to be a dictator and admires them for a president.
That he inspires that kind of talk makes me think there are plenty of unhinged doors out there.
That he inspires that kind of talk makes me think there are plenty of unhinged doors out there.
LDAHL for the win! :+1:
Catherine I don't know that I would go as far as "always", but while Trump is more obnoxious than any previous president, Clinton got us into the former Yugoslavia to distract us from Monica Lewinski and GWB peddled false stories about weapons of mass destruction so he could resume his dad's war with Iraq. Maybe we have to go back to Jimmy Carter to get away from distract the voters with military adventuring abroad, whether directly or through others like the contras.
Well, he does routinely talk about being president for more than 8 years. He claims he's joking, but given that he is completely lacking a sense of humor he probably actually means it and would make it happen if he could come up with some way to do it.
That is "easy". Just have to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Or get sneaky, run as vice-president in 2024, then quibble about the language in the 22nd amendment when the elected President steps aside in a Louisiana-like fashion and allows Trump to re-ascend the throne.
That he inspires that kind of talk makes me think there are plenty of unhinged doors out there.
Have you not been paying attention to what he says?
I also find it unsettling that he tells his boss about our military escapades before he tells congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-says-trump-notified-russians-of-baghdadis-apparent-death-before-telling-congressional-leaders/2019/10/27/d73bf418-f8ce-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0kRmZotjadCDZTe jDoAw8jnB4lksIsMFjDuqIrMGpyFdriRUOWdEDKEJI
That is "easy". Just have to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Or get sneaky, run as vice-president in 2024, then quibble about the language in the 22nd amendment when the elected President steps aside in a Louisiana-like fashion and allows Trump to re-ascend the throne.
Fortunately he doesn't understand the constitution well enough to figure that out.
Fortunately he doesn't understand the constitution well enough to figure that out.
I have faith that the men and women in America's military, or at least the officers, understand the Constitution and their duties.
gimmethesimplelife
1-4-20, 7:16pm
I have faith that the men and women in America's military, or at least the officers, understand the Constitution and their duties.I'm glad someone has this faith. I sure don't. Rob
I'm glad someone has this faith. I sure don't. Rob
So you think our military will deploy inside the USA on Trump's orders to impose martial law, or to keep him in power for an unconstitutional length of time?
So you think our military will deploy inside the USA on Trump's orders to impose martial law, or to keep him in power for an unconstitutional length of time?Do you see anyone in particular with the strength to oppose it? He's doing a dandy job of making sure the power players all over the board who won't gain from that move are simply acting stand-ins, and not appointed with any certainty or strength. Maybe Mike Pence will step in and stop him. :help:
Do you see anyone in particular with the strength to oppose it?
bae already provided the answer. The military itself would refuse unlawful orders to effect a coup.
I don't see that any of these hysterical fantasies have any reasonable possibility of occurring.
Teacher Terry
1-4-20, 10:37pm
Curious what was so different in Germany then what is occurring now? The military is based on orders especially from the commander in chief.
bae already provided the answer. The military itself would refuse unlawful orders to effect a coup.
I don't see that any of these hysterical fantasies have any reasonable possibility of occurring.But "the military itself" is at its core, people. Which person, exactly, is going to break the chain of command? FWIW I don't see this coup happening either, more because we're so enmeshed in bureaucratic protocol than due to any military rebellion. For once, ha ha, I'm in support of Big and the way it stands between people and change. ... i hope.
Again I ask: what form would this "martial law" take?
Curious what was so different in Germany then what is occurring now?
Pretty much everything. Centuries of a different military culture. A traditional officer class to suborn and co-opt. A comprehensive police state to keep the officer corps in line. National humiliations to avenge. Terror of major external enemies. Certainly not the same level of economic desperation. Much less complex systems of communication and control.
Personally, I think invoking the Third Reich is generally resorted to when people lack any better argument.
I’m curious at this confidence that the military will do the ‘right’ thing. I assume the same people who are saying that would say that in the event of an impeachment the senate will do the ‘right’ thing. Judging from what I see in the news about the senate I question these people’s confidence.
Have you not been paying attention to what he says?
]
Yes. To both sides.
The major difference I see with Germany is the economy. My grandmother was living there when Hitler came to power and said the people saw him as being "like Jesus" because he was going to save them from the Great Depression.
Yes. To both sides.
Then you are aware that he has said and done things that indicate that he wants to be a dictator and that he admires dictators. The only part of teacher terry’s post that is questionable, or a matter of opinion, is the adjective unhinged.
Teacher Terry
1-5-20, 11:00am
Thanks JP. I don’t understand how people can just ignore what he said and not take it seriously. I have never in my life been concerned for our country no matter who is president. This is very different and I know many people that are seriously worried.
The major difference I see with Germany is the economy. My grandmother was living there when Hitler came to power and said the people saw him as being "like Jesus" because he was going to save them from the Great Depression.
And Trump's evangelical base think he was "sent by God" to save them from evil immigrants, or gay people, or the pro-choice scourge, or some such fabricated nonsense--much like mid-20th century Germany.
I think it’s possible to hear both Trump and his enemies say ridiculous things without believing we are about to descend into dictatorship or be overrun by Third World hordes. The current histrionics notwithstanding, I don’t think we are at a pivotal moment in history.
ApatheticNoMore
1-5-20, 12:10pm
I think in many ways our present leaders are every bit as evil and destructive as the Third Reich, so if comparison is discouraged because "they aren't that bad", then I disagree.
However if comparison is discouraged because they aren't similar and so analogy doesn't really give one useful information, I tend to agree with that. Not that they aren't that bad though. Things can be equally bad and have nothing in common, one may as well compare a hurricane to an earthquake, cancer to parkinsons disease.
Hitler wasn't "that bad" ten years before he was. Trump wouldn't be so dangerous if he didn't have the full complicity of the Republicans and Putin--in other words, if our system worked.
You guys need to smile more, it makes you happier, and happier people are generally more conservative. Win-Win!
ApatheticNoMore
1-5-20, 12:52pm
Hitler wasn't "that bad" ten years before he was. Trump wouldn't be so dangerous if he didn't have the full complicity of the Republicans and Putin--in other words, if our system worked.
And 40 some percent of the electorate no matter what he does.
Again I ask: what form would this "martial law" take?
Anyone?
It's definitely a fantasyland question, but what would the outcome be if we just decided not to be the global police force. We stopped selling arms to foreign nations, supplying military aid, and toppling regimes and brought our overseas troops home. Lifted economic sanctions and allowed free trade of non military goods everywhere. Even Donald T said we have no business being involved in the blood stained sands of the middle east and Bernie has hinted at a big reductions of military overseas. Maybe directed all peacekeeping forces to a true alliance of nations, like NATO. It seems like all we end up doing is extending the business of never ending wars, no matter what we do to balance powers. I've wondered if some nations hate us just because we keep interfering. How would Americans feel if a foreign nation had troops patrolling the streets with long guns and body armour?
Would it be apocalypse or would there come to be an equilibrium.
Or what if we took the trillions of dollars we spend on war and spent it on the Peace Corps?
How would Americans feel if a foreign nation had troops patrolling the streets with long guns and body armour?
Like it was hunting season.
Like it was hunting season.
Maybe other countries feel the same way when we roam their streets?
Anyone?
We won't know until it happens. He can suspend elections, for one thing.
We won't know until it happens. He can suspend elections, for one thing.
How? How would he suspend elections?
It's definitely a fantasyland question, but what would the outcome be if we just decided not to be the global police force. We stopped selling arms to foreign nations, supplying military aid, and toppling regimes and brought our overseas troops home. Lifted economic sanctions and allowed free trade of non military goods everywhere. Even Donald T said we have no business being involved in the blood stained sands of the middle east and Bernie has hinted at a big reductions of military overseas. Maybe directed all peacekeeping forces to a true alliance of nations, like NATO. It seems like all we end up doing is extending the business of never ending wars, no matter what we do to balance powers. I've wondered if some nations hate us just because we keep interfering. How would Americans feel if a foreign nation had troops patrolling the streets with long guns and body armour?
Would it be apocalypse or would there come to be an equilibrium.
There's big money in war materiel...American oligarchs wouldn't be pleased, but I suppose Russia would take up the slack.
Maybe other countries feel the same way.
I'd think they would. Certainly, seeing how they've reacted indicates so.
I'm curious still about this "martial law" business, considering the difficulties the US has had in Iraq, which is a country about the size of Washington & Oregon states combined. How well would "martial law" work here inside the US borders, where the troops and their families would have to live among the civilian population, and where we would inconveniently look and talk like them, and where their bases are in our communities?
How have oppressive military regimes worked elsewhere?
How have oppressive military regimes worked elsewhere?
So, no answer?
How precisely do we get from today to some monster-under-the-bed oppressive military regime with Trump suspending elections?
After 9/11 all flights were grounded.
After snowstorms there are travel bans on roadways.
When criminals are on the loose in an area residents can be ordered to shelter in place.
I could see Trump fabricating a national emergency on Election Day and forbidding people from going to the polls.
Maybe a phony measles epidemic.
How well would "martial law" work here inside the US borders, where the troops and their families would have to live among the civilian population, and where we would inconveniently look and talk like them, and where their bases are in our communities?
I'm thinking Kent State.
I'm thinking Kent State.
One incident of inept National Guard troops from 50 years ago?
I have a hard time thinking that would work on a national scale.
The US military has ~2 million active+reserve folks on the roster. By way of comparison, in the 2016 season, there were 10 million deer hunters in the US, with about 6 million deer harvested. There are also ~19 million concealed carry permits issued in the USA, and bear in mind that some states don't even require a permit.
And then, there are about 1 million firefighters in the USA, and a large percentage of them have had at least HAZMAT awareness or operations level training, and that course is basically a course in how to be a better terrorist. Each department also likely has folks trained at the technician or specialist level.
I'm trying to think what would happen if Trump told the State of Washington it was under martial law, and that we weren't to have elections. I don't think it would go the same way as Kent State. I don't see our governor deploying our Guard units here to impose Trump's will against the populace. Heck, I just looked, and WA has ~600k veterans living in the state... And a good portion of those are "not too old" to have an opinion about things.
Well, one theory might be that a decent percentage of civilian gun owners are NRA Trump supporters who would appoint themselves as vigilantes or endorse militia activities. Then mayhem.
Kent State was an example of how poorly prepared the National Guard is to handle a civilian crisis and how it could have an undesirable outcome resulting in the loss of innocents.
Well, one theory might be that a decent percentage of civilian gun owners are NRA Trump supporters who would appoint themselves as vigilantes or endorse militia activities. Then mayhem.
Who wants mayhem?
My neighbor and good friend grew up in Serbia (well, a Serbian enclave in what is now Bosnia) during a time when it when from a wonderful place that had just hosted the Olympics to a total nightmare of partisan warfare.
Imposing "martial law" and suspending elections, and trying to have private gangs of partisan thugs enforce it, wouldn't go so easily and nicely these days as what happened in pre-WWII Germany. It'd be more like what happened to Yugoslavia, and terribly messy, since we all live together, even in the most red or blue areas...
How? How would he suspend elections?
Your guess is as good as mine; I've never seen anything like this before.
https://www.cair.com/breaking_cair_wa_assisting_iranian_americans_detai ned_u_s_border
Hitler wasn't "that bad" ten years before he was. Trump wouldn't be so dangerous if he didn't have the full complicity of the Republicans and Putin--in other words, if our system worked.
In ten years Trump will be a trivia question and the American Left will have moved on to Hitlerizing somebody else.
https://www.cair.com/breaking_cair_wa_assisting_iranian_americans_detai ned_u_s_border So basically the US is acting on military orders to detain US citizens of Iranian descent at the border, and a civilian rights group is working to aid them - because the people who have the power to reject this seemingly unconstitutional mandate haven't done so. ... I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. That ordinary people will aid each other in the event that our military doesn't rebel and act on their own moral imperatives / constitutional beliefs?
gimmethesimplelife
1-5-20, 8:25pm
So basically the US is acting on military orders to detain US citizens of Iranian descent at the border, and a civilian rights group is working to aid them - because the people who have the power to reject this seemingly unconstitutional mandate haven't done so. ... I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. That ordinary people will aid each other in the event that our military doesn't rebel and act on their own moral imperatives / constitutional beliefs?This situation - denying access to the US for returning Iranian American US citizens - really serves to show that we are not free in America....
Something I knew not at the age of 8. 11 on this one. Hopefully more people figure this out and adjust themselves accordingly. Who will be next and when will the US force them to wear something similar to yellow stars? I really am afraid of America and what it truly is.....I guess I can take solace in that more people will start having the realizations I've had. I'm thinking this can only be a good thing. We'll see what unfolds - or doesn't unfold - soon enough. Rob
In ten years Trump will be a trivia question
I'll take ELECTIONS for $100, Alex.
Answer: For over 200 years no presidential candidate questioned the validity of an election until this one, who, on the following morning tweeted, "IT'S A COUP!" and "THERE WAS WIDESPREAD VOTING IRREGULARITIES!" and "COVFEFE!"
https://www.cair.com/breaking_cair_wa_assisting_iranian_americans_detai ned_u_s_border
At least they're not sending them to interment camps.
gimmethesimplelife
1-5-20, 8:58pm
At least they're not sending them to interment camps.Yet. Rob
Teacher Terry
1-5-20, 9:06pm
Ldahl, no one that I know has ever compared another US President to Hitler so don’t know where you are going with that.
Ldahl, no one that I know has ever compared another US President to Hitler so don’t know where you are going with that.
Over the past half century, it has been rare for a Republican president not to be compared to Hitler. It is a calumny as tired as it is unoriginal. It last peaked during the Bush derangement period.
Teacher Terry
1-5-20, 11:49pm
Sorry but never have I heard a Republican President called that. You and Alan have your heads in the sand. I honestly have never worried about a Republican President.
ApatheticNoMore
1-6-20, 1:16am
Worrying about martial law does seem misplaced, when the present danger is war with Iran, and that's the evil that actually has an extremely probable chance of happening. And is at least as bad as marshal law ever would be, so isn't it evil enough for ya?
And kind of why bother anyway? There are plenty of ways to disenfranchise a significant number without declaring marshal law right. Because Trump is nuts? Well ... it is getting very hard to argue he's not nuts ... that's for sure.
ApatheticNoMore
1-6-20, 1:41am
So someone's issue with LBJ was say the Vietnam war, and then low and behold they also have issues with Nixon and then is the argument "you just criticize every President (even of both parties!), who can take you seriously?". I don't think so. Not much may be gained intellectually by comparisons to Hitler unless it really is the same situation, but the harm can be just as real. Because seriously the harms of many things in history have been just as real. I recently heard a presentation by a holocaust survivor and even then thought: globally the death toll from climate change is going to be much larger (it's less direct of course). No, I don't trivialize the holocaust, I wouldn't be here had my relatives stayed in Europe. I live however in the present and want to lessen the present horror show.
As for LBJ and Nixon and etc. etc., no every president is NOT equally bad. But we can often evaluate harms as they come, in the present, more accurately than the whole affect of a Presidency which is sometimes only seen in retrospect.
But don't worry almost noone is ever going to reevaluate the Trump presidency and find much good in it UNLESS ... we get even worse in the future! :doh:. We are afterall living out the absolute mess W made of U.S. involvement in the middle east. It was a complete disaster. Everything bad anyone said about W at least with regard to the disaster of his wars in the middle east was 100% true then and it's 100% true now. People who objected then do not look hysterical now but rather look VINDICATED now. But yea in many ways we got even worse with Trump!
Over the past half century, it has been rare for a Republican president not to be compared to Hitler. It is a calumny as tired as it is unoriginal. It last peaked during the Bush derangement period.
Sort of like the tired way that republicans have long called everything democrats do socialism?
Sorry but never have I heard a Republican President called that. You and Alan have your heads in the sand. I honestly have never worried about a Republican President.
If failing to join in the hysteria is the head in the sand position, I will cheerfully own it.
Sort of like the tired way that republicans have long called everything democrats do socialism?
Sort of like that. Although the comparison might be more apt if there were more agreement on what the word means.
You and Alan have your heads in the sand.
What have I done now?
Sort of like the tired way that republicans have long called everything democrats do socialism?"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." ~ Norman Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate representing the Socialist Party of America.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." ~ Norman Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate representing the Socialist Party of America.
Is that a promise or a threat?
Is that a promise or a threat?I think Nikita Kruschchev said pretty much the same thing back in the 50's as a threat, but I think Mr Thomas was probably making a promise. One that has nearly become true.
Troubled that he was too late to obliterate the Library at Alexandria, Emperor Trump has his sights set on Iran's irreplaceable ancient history.
Never mind that doing so would constitute a war crime; laws mean nothing to an emperor.
Every day, I wake up and think he's hit bottom. I haven't been right yet.
Troubled that he was too late to obliterate the Library at Alexandria, Emperor Trump has his sights set on Iran's irreplaceable ancient history.
Never mind that doing so would constitute a war crime; laws mean nothing to an emperor.
Every day, I wake up and think he's hit bottom. I haven't been right yet.
Finally, an alternative to the shopworn Hitler trope.
I wonder who people compared Hitler to back in the day? Various Hunnish or Mongol monarchs?
ApatheticNoMore
1-6-20, 10:43am
Troubled that he was too late to obliterate the Library at Alexandria, Emperor Trump has his sights set on Iran's irreplaceable ancient history.
Never mind that doing so would constitute a war crime; laws mean nothing to an emperor.
Every day, I wake up and think he's hit bottom. I haven't been right yet.
that happens in war of course, but yea deliberately wanting to target them, new low. This is why I'm saying the guy is quite possibly lost every single one of his marbles. And if impeachment drove him further off a cliff it was a bad choice strategically. A narrow impeachment it's hard to care about that seems not to have harmed him. Trump was wrong mind you, it's just hard to care that much about so narrow a scope, and no way to actually get rid of the guy that way, and he gets crazier and crazier possibly in response, or possibly just because, who knows.
---
On who people compared Hitler too, uh didn't Hitler claim to be inspired by the Armenian genocide, so how about that? Speaking of which, on the literally endless list of people Trump has tried to alienate, he was declaring the Armenian genocide not a genocide recently >8). Ok, alienating Armenians now too (remembering the genocide is actually a big deal). Congrats Trump.
Finally, an alternative to the shopworn Hitler trope.
I wonder who people compared Hitler to back in the day? Various Hunnish or Mongol monarchs?
I already compared him to Caligula. Not good enough for you?
Yes, they were quite happy with us as long as we were sending them plane loads of unmarked bills they could use to finance their terror operations in Iraq and Syria.
Are you talking about the nuclear agreement? The one agreed to by multiple European nations? (Hardly a unilateral move by President Obama...)
THE FACTS: It’s the kind of deal that did not actually take place.
When Iran signed the multinational deal to restrain its nuclear development in return for being freed from sanctions, it regained access to its own assets, which had been frozen abroad. There was no $150 billion gift from the U.S. treasury or other countries. Iran was allowed to get its money back. (AP Fact Check)
https://apnews.com/f53aeebcb0f64b76a2e2a54b2b002dad
This seems to be another tale right out of the same canon that brought us Hillary's basement sex ring, the murder of Vince Foster, the falsification of President Obama's birth certificate, and all those other fables.
I already compared him to Caligula. Not good enough for you?
I didn’t count Little Boots because so much handed down about him was written by and for the people who needed to justify killing him. Mary Beard wrote a good essay on the subject.
Not that I condone attacking statuary for it’s symbolic value. That seems like a waste when there are so many more lively targets than images of Persian kings or Confederate generals.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." ~ Norman Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate representing the Socialist Party of America.
I'm proud to be a liberal/progressive. Liberalism has consistently promoted programs that have made life better for the majority of Americans--from protection for labor unions, to Social Security and Medicare, to environmental protection and so forth. If that makes me a socialist--in the tradition of European socialism--I'm OK with that. Socialism is central to a functional society, as I see it--the alternative is what? Oligarchy? Anarchy? Conservatism was admirable when it concerned itself with conserving resources, but now it's only all about a few people hoarding billions, as far as I can see.
Do “liberal” and “progressive” have roughly similar political meanings anymore? Some recent candidates seem eager to further progressive ends by distinctly illiberal means.
And I think a lot of people inaccurately call themselves “conservative” when they are really just another flavor of populist or nationalist.
I think our traditional understanding of what both major parties stand for needs some recalibration.
“Socialism” is another term that gets used in so many ways as to be practically meaningless: either as insult or aspiration. Bernie seems to think it might mean “the way the Nordics do things”, to which some of the Nordics took offense. To some people, it seems to mean anything paid for with tax dollars or government borrowing. Others hew to the stricter Marxist definition.
I'm proud to be a liberal/progressive. Liberalism has consistently promoted programs that have made life better for the majority of Americans--from protection for labor unions, to Social Security and Medicare, to environmental protection and so forth. If that makes me a socialist--in the tradition of European socialism--I'm OK with that. Socialism is central to a functional society, as I see it--the alternative is what? Oligarchy? Anarchy? Conservatism was admirable when it concerned itself with conserving resources, but now it's only all about a few people hoarding billions, as far as I can see.
In my list of best presidents ever, I do count a Republican among them: Teddy Roosevelt. He was a Progressive Republican who put policies in place to protect the common man from corporate interests and recognized the importance of conserving the environment. Why can't we find a Republican like him?
In my list of best presidents ever, I do count a Republican among them: Teddy Roosevelt. He was a Progressive Republican who put policies in place to protect the common man from corporate interests and recognized the importance of conserving the environment. Why can't we find a Republican like him?
Or Eisenhower, who was absolutely right about the military-industrial complex, and presided over a fair federal tax system.
Are you talking about the nuclear agreement?
Yes. That was the reason given but I'm still curious what pallets of cash had to do with the agreement.
The one agreed to by multiple European nations? (Hardly a unilateral move by President Obama...) The money was a unilateral move by the Obama administration and had nothing to do with anything the European nations agreed to. It was delivered as pallets of cash on the same day Iran released 4 American hostages, although the administration insists they did not pay a ransom for them even though the hostages were not released until a few hours after the delivery. It probably took that much time to get a rough count on the money.
There seems to be a lot of detail missing from your AP story for some reason.
flowerseverywhere
1-6-20, 12:37pm
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." ~ Norman Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate representing the Socialist Party of America.
say social security, Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunch, subsidized housing, ACA, food stamps, ssdi and any other social programs were phased out over the next ten years. What would happen to the elderly, poor, unemployed, underemployed, disabled or very ill and so on?
Yes. That was the reason given but I'm still curious what pallets of cash had to do with the agreement.
The money was a unilateral move by the Obama administration and had nothing to do with anything the European nations agreed to. It was delivered as pallets of cash on the same day Iran released 4 American hostages, although the administration insists they did not pay a ransom for them even though the hostages were not released until a few hours after the delivery. It probably took that much time to get a rough count on the money.
There seems to be a lot of detail missing from your AP story for some reason.
Here's the long answer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/01/was-obamas-1-7-billion-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/
"One can certainly disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to send a jet with cash to Tehran on the same day that American detainees were released, but the action taken did not violate the law passed by Congress."
say social security, Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunch, subsidized housing, ACA, food stamps, ssdi and any other social programs were phased out over the next ten years. What would happen to the elderly, poor, unemployed, underemployed, disabled or very ill and so on?
We'll be finding out what the result of scrapping hundreds of regulations and safeguards will be, as Trump and his cabinet have made that a priority.
iris lilies
1-6-20, 12:51pm
say social security, Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunch, subsidized housing, ACA, food stamps, ssdi and any other social programs were phased out over the next ten years. What would happen to the elderly, poor, unemployed, underemployed, disabled or very ill and so on?
Of course these will not be rolled back because they are now too ingrained in our society. Too many of us have paid into these ponzi schemes and have been given promises.
But we rational grownups with an eye toward the country’s finances are doing our best to keep more of the same creeping into our federal system. If the states want to give away their wealth, let ‘em, that is ok with me. It the feds need to just staaaaaaaahp.
Here's the long answer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/01/was-obamas-1-7-billion-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/
"One can certainly disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to send a jet with cash to Tehran on the same day that American detainees were released, but the action taken did not violate the law passed by Congress."Thanks for that, I'd forgotten that the entire amount under dispute had been previously found to be fair game for compensatory damages for victims of Iran's holy war against the west and that our government had already paid out the initial $400,000,000.00 in claims before that same money did double duty as ransom payments, not to mention the $1.3B in interest paid in unmarked bills as well, that whole rule of 72 thing really pays off doesn't it, especially when so much media spends so much time convincing us there's nothing to see here.
ApatheticNoMore
1-6-20, 12:57pm
Too many of us have paid into these ponzi schemes and have been given promises.
I figure that's why they are propping up the stock market etc. (billions a day now - ok technically it's the banking system). Social security makes a lot of sense as a program, imperfect if it may be.
Everything else most people are betting their retirement on, and so do I, is nuts as all get go. But I do accept the world is nuts, and I must just live in it :) If there was a capitalism that makes sense economically (even if not in other senses like environmentally) without massive government liquidity infusions, we aren't there and haven't been for quite awhile.
iris lilies
1-6-20, 1:04pm
We'll be finding out what the result of scrapping hundreds of regulations and safeguards will be, as Trump and his cabinet have made that a priority.
ah yes, the rolled back promises.
It was President Obama who took away a promised program in Social Security income, one we planned to use. But Nope! Obama pulled that rug out from under us. No file-and-suspend for DH!
The thing is with us, we are not stupid sheeple who actually believe the gubmmt is here to help us. So I guess no big surprise.
My other close up and personal experience with Soc Security (during the Obama administration) was detailed in depth here years ago so I won’t cover it again. It was mind boggling, though, that Social Security threatened to remove my workplace from their entire program for their own idiotic glitch. My blood pressure is going up just thinking about it.The glitch was: they did not have in their possession the 1960’s authorizing letter from our Board of Directors agreeing to participate. And my workplace actually was able to find our copy of the letter. But no! They had to have the original or no dice.
And the cherry on top? The bxtxh from Social Security had the nerve to joke “we are from the government and are here to help.”
Such clueless bullshit.
ApatheticNoMore
1-6-20, 1:19pm
The thing is with us, we are not stupid sheeple who actually believe the gubmmt is here to help us. So I guess no big surprise.
this is mostly people quite correctly IMO evaluating social security as much more reliable than much else, in a world for which for most people, nothing is absolutely reliable. That just doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean everything else is quite made of sand, but Social Security promises are one of the more reliable things as far as anything goes. But nothing is absolutely so.
(I am reminded of the song "busload of faith" ("it takes a busload of faith to get by ..") - but we should try to hold government accountable for what it does of course).
In the end, you can only balance various risks against each other. You can’t eliminate them. I agree the best strategy is choosing some combination of the surviving elements of capitalism and the government’s cost-benefit analysis with regard to breaking promises.
But we rational grownups with an eye toward the country’s finances are doing our best to keep more of the same creeping into our federal system.
So you're gonna vote for the democrats next time?
Teacher Terry
1-6-20, 4:07pm
I can’t believe you called government programs Ponzi schemes. These programs are indispensable.
iris lilies
1-6-20, 4:07pm
So you're gonna vote for the democrats next time?
of course not, none of them in Congress are rational adults about their spending. Well, Rand Paul stands up once in a wjile and makes a plea for rationality.
flowerseverywhere
1-6-20, 4:37pm
Of course these will not be rolled back because they are now too ingrained in our society. Too many of us have paid into these ponzi schemes and have been given promises.
But we rational grownups with an eye toward the country’s finances are doing our best to keep more of the same creeping into our federal system. If the states want to give away their wealth, let ‘em, that is ok with me. It the feds need to just staaaaaaaahp.
i disagree. The index by which SS determines raises can be changed, retirement age increased, higher Medicare premiums and copays, smaller block grants to states to administer their own programs (instead of just taking less tax money) but then it’s impossible to take wealth from the coastal elites and redistribute to the red states. Squeezing all of these programs little by little for ten years could make many more sick and poor people.
Evidence: the republicans have been saying for close to ten years now they were going to repeal and replace the ACA. I’ve seen lots of repeal attempts and zero replace attempts. There would be huge celebrations if Obamacare was totally abolished until all those pesky uninsured who would realize what they lost. Especially those diabetics, and so on also known as currently protected preexisting condition consumers. You lose your job and can’t get a new one quickly because your company relocates and you are sol if you are a diabetic, pregnant or cancer patient without the ACA protections.
I can’t believe you called government programs Ponzi schemes. These programs are indispensable.
Whether they are Ponzi schemes and whether they are indispensable are two separate and unrelated issues. You can fund an indispensable program with an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, at least for awhile. But funding a sacred program does not elevate an unsustainable funding mechanism above criticism.
Finally, an alternative to the shopworn Hitler trope.
I wonder who people compared Hitler to back in the day? Various Hunnish or Mongol monarchs?
Churchill compared him to street urchins "bloodthirsty guttersnipe".
Teacher Terry
1-6-20, 5:24pm
Ldahl, those programs aren’t in financial difficultly if we put our priorities in the right place. The government wastes a ton of money that could be used for better purposes.
Ldahl, those programs aren’t in financial difficultly if we put our priorities in the right place. The government wastes a ton of money that could be used for better purposes.
They are in financial difficulties unless the design is changed, if the trustees are to be believed.
Teacher Terry
1-6-20, 5:30pm
Well I don’t believe it. The wealthy want to have a society of poor and rich with no middle class.
iris lilies
1-6-20, 5:42pm
I can’t believe you called government programs Ponzi schemes. These programs are indispensable.
The Fed’s Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance program (aka Social Security) has similarities to a Ponzi scheme. Surely you can see that.
My calling it that name doesn't refute its importance in the lives of citizens. Surely you can see that if you read my words.
But if Social Security payouts are so very important, I wonder why Congress plays around with the SS fund and more importantly, why it is doing nothing to address the known shortfall that is coming. Surely you can see that has some danger.
Well I don’t believe it. The wealthy want to have a society of poor and rich with no middle class.
What do you think it is about wealth that makes those who possess it so evil?
iris lilies
1-6-20, 5:49pm
Well I don’t believe it. The wealthy want to have a society of poor and rich with no middle class.
what is it exactly that you dont believe? The actuarial projections for
social security payouts?
Teacher Terry
1-6-20, 7:03pm
As a country we can afford it. It’s no different than my personal budget if I spend my mortgage money on fun then I lose my house. Our country can spend money on the programs people rely on and quit wasting money which happens all the time. I would venture to guess that most of the politicians both Democrats and Republicans don’t really care about the average person. They are just lying to get votes. The income inequality is growing and is a huge problem. For some people no matter how many millions or billions they have it’s never enough.
As a country we can afford it. Yes we can, if we allow the government to take more and more from it's citizens to be re-distributed elsewhere. But do you think there can ever be an end to that?
The income inequality is growing and is a huge problem.
I've never heard a good explanation of why inequality is bad unless those with more are taking from those with less. Do you think that's what's happening here?
For some people no matter how many millions or billions they have it’s never enough. Or is the real problem that some people don't like the idea of other people having more?
Some people don't like the idea of earned income being taxed at higher rates than investment income, of some rich corporations and individuals paying no taxes at all, and of corporate welfare such as bribes of no taxes for years to locate your business in our state, then when the tax free period is over the jobs go to China. The tax code is not fair. Years ago I liked Steve Forbes when he ran for president because he advocated a flat tax for everyone with no deductions or loopholes. At the time I was renting and didn't agree with - and still don't even though I have since bought a home - people who can afford a house getting a tax subsidy that poorer people don't get.
Teacher Terry
1-6-20, 7:30pm
We don’t have to take anymore money from people. We can choose to spend the money on our priorities. Unfortunately, the people in power are corrupt.
We don’t have to take anymore money from people. Several of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates are talking about doubling (at a minimum) federal spending in order to provide free stuff. Where does that money come from?
Unfortunately, the people in power are corrupt. What makes you say that?
Yes, power corrupts. Three speakers of my state house in a row were indicted:
https://www.masslive.com/news/2011/07/a_tale_of_3_speakers_--_salvat.html
Since then my state senate leader resigned amid a scandal.
Big money interests donate to committee chairs in the state legislature and in return if they don't like a proposed bill the chair kills it in committee.
I hear Rhode Island and Louisiana are even worse.
Gov. Inslee of WA State:
https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-statement-response-washingtonians-detained-canadian-border
I use this border crossing frequently. I can see it from here.
Teacher Terry
1-6-20, 10:49pm
Cut military spending, repeal the tax cuts and withdraw from the Middle East. Problem solved.
Several of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates are talking about doubling (at a minimum) federal spending in order to provide free stuff.
Definition of "free stuff" according to an article I just read:
“Free stuff”
A term of contemptuous dismissal for public services that are commonly available in other developed countries, and which any decent society would make available to all human beings.
Definition of "free stuff" according to an article I just read:
“Free stuff”
A term of contemptuous dismissal for public services that are commonly available in other developed countries, and which any decent society would make available to all human beings.Whoever provided that definition seems a little crotchety in their moralizing. When I hear 'free stuff' I think of the actual cost of it.
Whoever provided that definition seems a little crotchety in their moralizing. When I hear 'free stuff' I think of the actual cost of it.
Well, then, as you know, entitlements are not "free stuff." Funding is built into the economy via all taxpayers. This "free stuff" doesn't come in the form of BMWs and ski-jets. It comes in the form of quality of life commodities that we would all benefit equally from--healthcare and education for instance.
There's no magic to it. If we want a bigger welfare state, we need to pay for it with taxes on the middle class. That's how all those other countries pay for theirs. That, and various forms of rationing.
But here our social saviors want us to believe we can avoid that unpleasant reality by telling us we can get all we need by shaking down billionaires and looking for change under the federal seat cushions.
flowerseverywhere
1-7-20, 11:17am
d
I read about fifty people were trampled to death at one of those spontaneous eruptions of grief you often see in totalitarian countries when one of the ruling cutthroats dies.
iris lilies
1-7-20, 12:06pm
Cut military spending, repeal the tax cuts and withdraw from the Middle East. Problem solved.
well, I probably agree with much of that in general.
Notice my weasel words “probably, much, and general.”
But yeah.depends on the details.
But here our social saviors want us to believe we can avoid that unpleasant reality by telling us we can get all we need by shaking down billionaires and looking for change under the federal seat cushions.
Well, one of those lumpy seat cushions has a pile of quarters sufficient to pay for a military pretty much as expensive as the rest of the planet combined spends, so maybe that would be a good cushion to pick up first.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.