Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Kasandra

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 36
151
General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 21, 2020, 06:51:07 AM »
I suppose that the nation who didn't want to remove Confederate statues, deserves getting even more statues than that toppled.

Agreed.  By definition, statues of Confederate Army generals or the Confederate battle flag are symbols of treason.  The same people who proudly defend them now claim to do it in defense of everything those symbols opposed.  The added irony is that nearly all of the generals were losers of almost every battle they led their troops into and the troops themselves were almost never owned slaves.  To say they were misguided is being too kind. So, what are we supposed to call those who carry guns in defense of those things today?  Misguided doesn't come close.

152
General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 20, 2020, 10:09:05 PM »
Well I saw a youtube video posted by the flat earth society that proves there weren't even any police near him, he threw himself to the ground in an empty courtyard.

I'm oddly sympathetic with flat-earthers, as for one example the basketball would keep rolling away otherwise, but I am skeptical about this claim.

A city councilwoman posted a statement about the CHOP shooting.  Our conservative members (some of whom are good people) might liken this to a flat-earth belief, but I'm evenly sympathetic to the blue marble point of view.

Quote
Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of the black protester who was tragically killed this morning by gunfire at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP). Socialist Alternative and I stand in solidarity with the family and friends of the victim, and with the injured protester now in the hospital, as well as with all community members and fellow activists.

Though we await confirmation of the details of the killing, there are indications that this may have been a right-wing attack. If so, this would not be the first such attack on the Capitol Hill Black Lives Matter protest. As many recall, an armed man drove into the protest action on June 8, and shot black activist Dan Gregory, who had heroically intervened to stop the driver.

153
General Comments / Re: The CHAZ
« on: June 20, 2020, 05:54:46 PM »
Antifa?

154
Amazing, it's like you guys have never heard of shorthand being used for anything besides nefarious purposes.

And taking literal interpretation to entirely new levels to boot, with regards to comments from someone you should know not to take literally.

Said by Ornery's top Trump interpreter so that we won't foolishly believe he means what he says. :)

Quote
I'll take a mea culpa on remembering my interpretation of what he said rather than the actual words he used. But let us revisit this, because you seem to forget English has other rules which can be invoked.

Uh-huh.

155
General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 20, 2020, 07:27:19 AM »
Quote
Nothing you say is remotely SANE, let alone true. Open your own frigging eyes and stop spewing every single piece of lie you're being spoonfed.

Zealots can see the cosmic truth in the least grain of sand.  I've stopped responding to wmLambert's posts because you can't argue or even have a conversation with someone who thinks like that.

156
Correct. However you CAN block the way and expect to be non-violently removed and arrested, not beaten with sticks and gassed. Trump didn't clarify what kind of treatment he wanted to give them that they didn't get in those other places.

I'm reasonably certain that some agitators will make sure things escalate quickly once they try to disperse the counter-protesters. The tear gas will come out.

Trump's dog whistle call for counter-protesters and warning that implied he will unleash the dogs was his attempt to raise the likelihood for violent clashes and fires.  But you won't be able to blame him for anything that happens; he only lit the match.

157
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 19, 2020, 05:34:08 PM »
On election day, you don't want to be caught sitting on your glutens.  The saying goes that this election is the most important one of your lifetime, and as is always the case, it's true.

158
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 19, 2020, 04:33:44 PM »
Never Trump rides again. I can sympathize, I don't intend to vote for Trump either. But I'm never going to endorse Biden.

Half a loaf is better than none :).

159
It's funny how Trump's messages have to constantly be reinterpreted and modified to make them look better than they actually are. I'm going to take him at his word.

I'd take it in the context of an abortion clinic and when the "Right to Life" protesters were informed their "right to protest" did not extend to being able to block access.

You think they should have the right to prevent you from exercising your rights?  That's what the phony freedom of religion "movement" is all about.  If I were the only doctor on duty in my emergency room and someone came in with a gunshot wound wearing a red MAGA hat, my religion might be such that I would refuse to treat him because the color red signifies the devil.  He can go to another emergency room for treatment.  Freedom of religion for one is freedom of religion for all, baby.

160
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 19, 2020, 04:28:43 PM »
Quote
Pretty much my take, AntiFa in particular has a long history of turning up to "counter-protest" where-ever Trump turns up.

You like to use the word Antifa, but I have yet to see a single credible story anywhere that "they" have shown up anywhere,

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/23/donald-trump-protest-arizona-215521

Yes, its nearly 3 years old at this point, but they haven't gone away, they simply went dormant until campaign season resumed.

3 years old?  Nothing has Trump has done in the last 3 years would bring them out of their hibernation?  The fact that they have apparently done nothing during the recent massive anti-racism protests tells you that ... they're waiting for the campaign season to start ...? :). The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. That's how you know he's still there.

161
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 19, 2020, 02:04:13 PM »
Recently formed groups of current and former Republicans who have renounced the sitting President of their Party.

Quote
The latest super PAC of Republicans for Joe Biden, The Right Side PAC, includes short-lived former Trump communications director Anthony Scaramucci and launched Wednesday. Scaramucci told Newsweek he plans to go into swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, in predominantly white areas that voted for Trump, to spread his message of why it's against their interest to continue to support him. The group will use digital, phone, and mail to reach voters and rely on major donors.
...
The creation of that PAC follows the new 45 Alumni for Biden PAC of former Bush administration officials that began this month. Former President George W. Bush will not support Trump, and his spokesman Freddy Ford told Newsweek he is also not involved in the PAC. But the group, which will fundraise for Biden, quickly gathered close to 200 supporters.
...
The fundraising efforts come on top of high-profile GOP defections, like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said June 7 that Trump "lies" and he will vote for Biden. Cindy McCain, the widow of former Senator John McCain, plans to support Biden but may not be public about it because of her son's political career, The New York Times reported.

Then there are the groups like The Lincoln Project, started by veterans of past Republican campaigns, which spent $1.4 million against Trump through March and raised another $1 million after the president attacked the group in May for their ad on his coronavirus response. Bill Kristol's Republican Voters Against Trump is also stocked by GOP operatives and is releasing searing ads against him, like one featuring Senator Lindsey Graham. The ad received widespread media coverage and attention on social media after showing Graham slamming Trump during the 2016 campaign and then lavishing praise on Biden.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure some of them are fine people.

162
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 19, 2020, 01:34:28 PM »
A dog whistle and a dare calling right-wing militant groups to counter-demonstrate and cause confrontations:

Quote
President Donald Trump on Friday threatened action against protesters and others who might seek to sabotage his rally this weekend in Tulsa, Okla. — echoing the hard-line rhetoric he has employed in response to mass demonstrations across the country against police brutality and racial injustice.

“Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “It will be a much different scene!”

163
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 19, 2020, 12:50:48 PM »
Quote
Pretty much my take, AntiFa in particular has a long history of turning up to "counter-protest" where-ever Trump turns up.

You like to use the word Antifa, but I have yet to see a single credible story anywhere that "they" have shown up anywhere, have parked piles of bricks anywhere, or even actually exist as anything more than a talking point for anti-leftists.  How about you provide a link to something?  If you do, I'll show you lots more about right-wing and white nationalists who have shown up and self-identified as members of the organizations.

A Trump ad was taken down on FB for including a symbol (red upside down triangle) that was a known Nazi badge used to identify political prisoners in camps through WWII.  Trump's campaign claimed it was an antifa symbol, but the only reference I've heard connecting the symbol to antifa so far is the Trump claim.

And don't get me started about the phony CNN video that Trump tweeted.

164
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 19, 2020, 11:54:20 AM »
Just to clarify, Kasandra, is that quote supposed to make Trump look bad? It certainly makes some people look bad...

Nothing makes Trump look bad any more than a lit match can be blamed if a building burns down.

Your analogy is apt enough, since I would blame the person spreading kerosene and throwing the match into it. The match is most certainly not to blame, even though it does present an opportunity for an arsonist.

Analogies always work up to a point, and then you have to stretch them to fit.  What if someone leaves a box of matches next to a building knowing that there is a bottle of kerosine that was supposed to be used to refill a lamp.  Plausible deniability for everyone who didn't actually take a match left by someone else and accidentally drop it next to a building on which someone else had splashed the kerosine thinking it wasn't flammable!

Do you think if things go to hell in Tulsa this weekend during or after a Trump rally where thousands of protesters against racism are gathering because of the rally that Trump should say, "I don't take responsibility at all"?

165
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 19, 2020, 11:30:56 AM »
Just to clarify, Kasandra, is that quote supposed to make Trump look bad? It certainly makes some people look bad...

Nothing makes Trump look bad any more than a lit match can be blamed if a building burns down.

166
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 19, 2020, 11:06:24 AM »
I should probably apologize to TheDrake for leading his thread astray, but since I've already broken through the wall of etiquette this is no time to retreat!  Besides, there is speculation that one reason Kim is acting up again is because he knows Trump is distracted and on the defensive over all the things that have gone wrong lately in the US.  So there is that connection...

Quote
The city of Tulsa announced a last-minute curfew that began Thursday night and will continue Friday and Saturday, restricting people from a large area surrounding the arena where President Trump will hold his first campaign rally in months.

An executive order signed by Mayor G.T. Bynum (R) says the curfew, which begins at 10 p.m. and lifts at 6 a.m. all three nights, is intended to quell potential overnight violence as thousands intend to pour into the city to protest the president’s visit.

It’s unclear whether the Trump supporters who have camped out for days to secure a prime spot to see the president on Saturday will be cleared out as well, but some videos posted on social media appeared to show people leaving the area carrying tents and lawn chairs .

Bynum declared a “civil emergency” after law enforcement informed the mayor that “individuals from organized groups who have been involved in destructive and violent behavior in other states are planning to travel to the City of Tulsa for purposes of causing unrest in and around the rally,” the order reads.

167
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 19, 2020, 07:29:51 AM »
Quote
Almost 100% guarantee that it is a ceremonial holiday in most states, and that observations of the day have historically gone ignored by local press.

Probably so, but "local press" could be euphemistic for "the people who buy this newspaper are white and don't care, so no news."

Quote
And as to the Tulsa connection... I just had this come across my facebook feed by way of prior shipmate of mine, who happens to be black. Something is missing from his description, and would make it rather obvious why Trump would be oblivious to the landmine that was Tulsa. (Which incidentally, didn't happen on the 19th of June, but instead happened on May 31st and June 1st according to Wiki)

May 31/June 1 1921 is when the riot/massacre happened in Tulsa, but the "news" was delivered by Union troops to Galveston residents on June 19, 1865.  From what I'm reading, it has been celebrated in black communities annually for decades, if not all the way back to 1866, mostly in local and private events, and I doubt there are parades in many places.

I read the novel "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison, along with novels and histories about deep racism in the US by other black writers in college, but I don't recall Juneteenth ever coming up.  I've known about it since I read Ellison's other novel, "Juneteenth," about 20 or so years ago.  You and I (and many others) may not have known or thought about it much before Trump threw it in everybody's face, but that he was ignorant about it and still chose to go ahead with the rally on or near the date after he did learn about it is the issue, not whether us white boys were offended.

This won't be a happy weekend in Tulsa for anybody except Trump, who loves people hating him almost as much as he begs for their love.

168
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 18, 2020, 09:31:27 PM »
I'd never heard of it before activists made an issue of it. I'd lay odds most people, even most blacks, were oblivious of the event(or at least, its date) until Trump happened to stumble upon the right combination of Tulsa, Oklahoma and that date for it to be brought roaring out of obscurity.

Your projection is showing...

Quote
Though not a federal holiday, 47 states and the District of Columbia recognize Juneteenth as a state or ceremonial holiday. The only three states that do not recognize the holiday are North Dakota, South Dakota and Hawaii. Texas was the first state to recognize the holiday in 1980.

169
General Comments / Re: No nobel for Trump
« on: June 18, 2020, 06:23:32 PM »
Well, there's still an outside chance he could get the Peace Prize for any number of other things that he's done.  For instance,

Quote
"I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous," Trump said in reference to the rally date in an interview published Thursday. "It's actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it."

170
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 04:33:07 PM »
The biggest weapon in our non-military arsenal is that Trump appears to be a confirmed coward.  Unfortunately, he has just as little interest in diplomacy.  As a result, I haven't heard anything about US-Iran relations in several months.  The same goes for North Korea, where the love may have gone sour, but he's not willing to go back to bluster armed conflict or bluster diplomacy.

171
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 18, 2020, 04:30:27 PM »
Ducey is stutter-stepping on the issue now and is willing to consider mini-steps to retrench the restrictions. I hope he'll do that respecting the facts on the ground rather than the political implications.

172
Fine by me, except he won't get far :)

173
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 18, 2020, 02:38:24 PM »
Arizona is reporting its highest daily total of new cases every day this week.  The number has quadrupled since the stay-at-home order was lifted a month ago.  More importantly, the positive test rate is also climbing, indicating that the hospitalizations and deaths will continue to rise for several more weeks, at least.

Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and other states are also reporting their highest case totals.  Pence's and Trump's story that the higher case count is due to increased testing doesn't hold, most obviously in Oklahoma where the number of tests has dropped while the positive cases has gone up.

Trump seems to honestly believe that getting sick with COVID is directly tied to getting tested.  Fewer tests, fewer cases, fewer hospitalizations, fewer deaths.  Easy-peasy.

One day there will be a reckoning for all the lies that Trump has promulgated about how dangerous this disease is.  Pence is no better, having predicted in April that the disease would disappear by Memorial Day and a few days ago writing in an op-ed that thanks to Trump's hard work the disease is in decline, there will be no second wave, and a vaccine will be available in October.

174
I have been slowly coming to the opinion that Trump will step aside over the summer due to "health issues" and the GOP will have to scramble to find a comparably mentally impaired replacement.  Actually, that shouldn't be too hard.  I wonder what his excuse will be, but I expect he'll announce it while doing circles around the press gaggle in a golf cart.

Is this a joke? Trump wants to win. He'll either declare ultimate victory and walk away or ride it out to the bitter end.

That's the thing, he ONLY wants to win, not to place or show.  If he doesn't have a path to victory by, you know, winning the vote, and he can't suppress the vote, and he can't buy off faithless electors, and he can't declare himself pasta for life, why wouldn't he hightail it to his winter dacha-lago en permanente?  Of course, he would need a get out of jail free (pardon) card from Pence on the way out or he would out Pence for his own moral turpitude and lock him in a room with 4 prostitutes for a month with no masks of any kind.  As you can see, not a joke.

175
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 12:57:34 PM »
I'll argue that the second Iraq War eclipses the others as being misguided, since we launched it under the worst possible phony excuses.

Except your hyperbole machine is going off again. There was a much worse phony excuse in the Gulf of Tonkin, where a torpedo may or may not have ever existed, and definitely didn't hit anything. Compared to clear violations of agreements on armaments, actual anti-aircraft missiles launched, and a highly dangerous tightrope where Hussein had convinced some of his own generals that he had chemical weapons, and interfered with efforts by Hans Blix to effectively conduct inspections. I also still think it quite likely that the Bush Administration picked what it wanted to hear for intelligence, but not disingenuously. I think they really believed he had the weapons, based on disinformation fed to them by Chalabi and other Iraqi opposition.

If you want to change all your "most" to "very", I have nothing to argue. The Iraq war was definitely bad in all these categories.

I'm resistant to change on this point.  If and when the complete history of the Iraq War comes out, as the full story of the Gulf of Tonkin is now known, I think we'll find it was even far worse than we imagine.  We like to blame the war on Bush, both for its instigation under false premises and incompetent prosecution, but he was a useful-idiot tool for Cheney and Rumsfeld, respectively.  In other words, they pulled his strings much as Xi and Putin are pulling Trump's.  Bush never knew what hit him until the dust settled; Trump will never know.  We're just lucky he is too much of a coward to do anything.

176
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 12:39:59 PM »
An excerpt from the Wall Street Journal today:
Quote
In June 2019, Xi "explained to Trump why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang. ... Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do."

"Trump then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability and pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win.”
That damned, lying, John Bolton...

I suspect that next week is not going to be a great week for the administration...

*censored* spoilers! At least nobody tell me how it ends.  8)

This is how.

177
I have been slowly coming to the opinion that Trump will step aside over the summer due to "health issues" and the GOP will have to scramble to find a comparably mentally impaired replacement.  Actually, that shouldn't be too hard.  I wonder what his excuse will be, but I expect he'll announce it while doing circles around the press gaggle in a golf cart.

178
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 12:05:52 PM »
I'll qualify my comments that the terms I used are all somewhat or completely non-empirical, including the "expensive" aspect.

Expensive: Estimating the total cost of US involvement in Mideast conflicts since 9/11 comes to at least as much as your $4T WWII estimate.  This site claims $5.9T for all Mideast military involvement, far higher than your $1T guess.  I think both your estimate for WWII and the one I found for Mideast conflicts are both high, but the Mideast costs are still higher than WWII.

Quote
You'd have to figure out a metric for "most destructive", but I'd say flattening Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki wins hands down on their own against the Iraq war in human lives and destruction of roads, bridges, hospitals, apartment buildings, and on and on.

I'm inclined to lean your way on this point for lost lives, but our Mideast engagements had both massive direct costs in deaths, population displacement, and ongoing resulting deaths and displacements that go beyond just lost lives.  I can't give a measurement for that.

Quote
Gulf of Tonkin was at the time understood to be really sketchy, while Hussein's Iraq clearly was launching missiles. Similarly, the Maine was a total cockup pushed by Hearst, of very dubious reality. It would be like if Bush had launched the Iraq war because Fox News kept publishing crap about Hussein and Iraq. And geopolitically? The Monroe doctrine is a lot more suspect than the idea of establishing a heavy boot in the Middle East. Spain wasn't even a real enemy, we just wanted to scoop up Cuba for our own interests. Misguided? I'd be hard pressed to find out how Iraq war would beat out either of them.

I think you and I would be in agreement that all of the major military conflicts (except WWII) the US has fought were avoidable.  I'll argue that the second Iraq War eclipses the others as being misguided, since we launched it under the worst possible phony excuses.  Every single claim that was used to justify it initially was false, and in combination with the still ongoing war in Afghanistan, had virtually no change of achieving the advertised goals.  I'll never understand how our "leaders" at the time escaped accountability and punishment.  We've "litigated" the casus belli for these wars often enough on Ornery already, so I'll leave it at that.  FWIW, I also thought the first Gulf War was a huge mistake that led to horrific and unanticipated consequences.  That hasn't been given nearly as much attention here, but it's probably not worth spending much time on it at this point.

Quote
Disastrous? That's the most ambiguous of the four, and overlaps with the others to varying degrees.

I'll comment on it even so.  There's no question that WWII cost the most lives of any conflict in the time period we're talking about, if we ignore Asian conflicts and disasters (such as the preventable Chinese famine that killed 10's of millions of people) the US didn't directly engage in. The US foreign policy in the Mideast has been a colossal disaster, to put it mildly, for the 100 years since we carved up the region after WWI.  Everything from that time through the establishment of the Israeli state, our wandering support for Iran vs. Iraq and vice versa, all have served selfish US interests in acquiring steady and low-cost access to the region's oil.  There's no other consistency to our national policy guiding which autocratic or despotic leaders we support or oppose (and depose).

Ignoring the major Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's, that led to the first Gulf War, which we fought solely to "protect" Kuwaiti oil supplies.  The aftermath of that war plunged Iraq into a decade of horrific human rights losses.  It's estimated that 100's of thousands died in Iraq died during the interregnum as a result of leaving Hussein in power.

The death and displacement totals from the second Iraq War are almost certainly much higher, with estimates I've seen ranging from 200,000 to almost 1,000,000 death and many millions displaced or suffering long-term injuries.  That doesn't include Afghanistan, which to some extent "suffers in silence" due to poorer war reporting coming out of the country.

I'll stop here with the general comment that you can rank wars over the past century or so to make some appear more evil than others and the arguments to fight them more mendacious for some than for others, but in my mind nothing compares to the wholesale multigenerational rape and pillaging of the Mideast.

[I spent too much time on this already, so I won't review it to edit mistakes...]

179
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 05:17:01 AM »
If the argument is about Trump being militarist, he has a lot of those tendencies no doubt. In terms of attitude. He saber rattles more than Reagan did. He's very comfortable with the idea of using the military domestically. And he worships the military to an extent that I haven't seen recently, and suspect was even more than Eisenhower, a general who warned against the military industrial complex. But he hasn't actually followed through on his threats to wipe out North Korea. He hasn't actually declared any martial law. He hasn't dropped any atomic bombs. So there's attitude versus action to weigh carefully, versus Reagan who did invade other countries. And Clinton who deployed US troops to Bosnia and Somalia. And Bush who invaded Iraq. And Johnson. And so on.

World War II was the most expensive war in United States history. Adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars, the war cost over $4 trillion and in 1945, the war’s last year, defense spending comprised about 40% of gross domestic product (GDP). The Iraq war never came close to that. The Iraq war cost $1 trillion.

You'd have to figure out a metric for "most destructive", but I'd say flattening Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki wins hands down on their own against the Iraq war in human lives and destruction of roads, bridges, hospitals, apartment buildings, and on and on.

Gulf of Tonkin was at the time understood to be really sketchy, while Hussein's Iraq clearly was launching missiles. Similarly, the Maine was a total cockup pushed by Hearst, of very dubious reality. It would be like if Bush had launched the Iraq war because Fox News kept publishing crap about Hussein and Iraq. And geopolitically? The Monroe doctrine is a lot more suspect than the idea of establishing a heavy boot in the Middle East. Spain wasn't even a real enemy, we just wanted to scoop up Cuba for our own interests. Misguided? I'd be hard pressed to find out how Iraq war would beat out either of them.

Disastrous? That's the most ambiguous of the four, and overlaps with the others to varying degrees.

Good post, over all.  I'll quibble later.

180
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 05:15:02 AM »
Why don't you just say you don't like any of my answers?  If I had an iPhone, it would be frustrated with you, too.

It literally didn't look like clear English. Hard to "not like" what looks like nonsense. A simple clarification rather than a sarcastic rejoinder would have sufficed. Something tells me you save these gems just for me.

One dictionary definition of militarist:

Quote
holding the belief that a country should maintain a strong military capability.
"the aggressive militarist foreign policy of the government"

All you had to do was look it up.  Using that "strong military capability" would be a job for a real leader, a club to which Trump does not belong, and to which pretty much all past Presidents have accepted the invitation.

If you can bear it, re-read my first post, which was pointed sarcasm about how Trump and Bolton resemble each other as paper tigers, spouting policy like oragami.  Each's rhetoric soared over the topics against which they launched it without ever touching earth, and then disappeared from view.  I think it's safe to say that no country on earth is afraid of Trump's supposed momentary fits of wrath or scrotal threats.  Trump's own Pentagon has no idea what he will say or do next, but he imagines they bow in homage for each utterance, when in reality (according to Gates' and Bolton's books and ongoing criticism from many of our ex-military mighties), they are cringing into their corners.  It's even possible that many of those countries leaders are holding back on their own militarist impulses out of concern for what the next US President will do to them in response, not what Trump will do now.

181
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 18, 2020, 04:59:29 AM »
Why don't you just say you don't like any of my answers?  If I had an iPhone, it would be frustrated with you, too.

It literally didn't look like clear English. Hard to "not like" what looks like nonsense. A simple clarification rather than a sarcastic rejoinder would have sufficed. Something tells me you save these gems just for me.

Oh no, those gems are cubic zirconia, cheap and plentiful.

I think I resent that, not sure.

182
Not swagger, swag.

183
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 17, 2020, 10:25:50 PM »
Why don't you just say you don't like any of my answers?  If I had an iPhone, it would be frustrated with you, too.

184
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 17, 2020, 09:48:25 PM »
Pretty sure FDR holds the crown for most destructive. If we adjust for inflation, I wouldn't count on Bush(43) being able to top the list either.

Show your homework?  Remember I qualified my estimation with "expensive, destructive, misguided and disastrous".

Which means you think one President wins on all four counts? That's a hard sell. Unless you've created some kind of secret quarterback rating weights for each of your factors.

WW2 was the most expensive, and destructive.
Misguided is open for interpretation, but probably the Spanish-American war.
Disastrous quite likely goes to Vietnam, especially factoring in civil unrest.

FWIW, I disagree with your assessments.  All of the four qualifications are to some degree subjective, so I would say that the second Iraq War wins in all 4 categories.  You're obviously thinking in the greater timeframe.  Maybe I'll respond at greater length tomorrow, but I'm not sure anybody will come to agreement with anybody else.  Geez, we can't even agree on whether Trump is "militarist" or not.

185
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 17, 2020, 09:38:23 PM »
Quote
I guess you don't have an answer then, other than you're pretty sure Trump is a militarist even though he's been the least aggressive in foreign policy in my lifetime.

This is your MO and sounds eerily familiar.  You challenge the original post and ignore my response and start the cycle of insisting I give you more justifications.  Sorry if you don't like my answer, dude, take it or leave it.

186
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 17, 2020, 06:53:18 PM »
Half the country is limiting access to elective medical procedures nowadays, so...

Oh, yeah, that was the fun part...

187
Quote
They've come up with many other cures and therapeutics over the years. These are the people, the best, the smartest, the most brilliant anywhere. And they've come up with the AIDS vaccine.

People will be so relieved to know that.  One wonders why it's been kept so secret...

188
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 17, 2020, 06:50:36 PM »
Quote
Talk about confusing; I'm not sure what you are literally saying here. Are you saying I'm calling Trump a militarist, or is that an attempt at a quote and missing a quotation mark? And I'm not sure I agree with you? Not sure at all what you're saying here, maybe typos in your message?

Are all Presidents in the last 30+ years militarists?  Is Trump a President in the last 30+ years?

189
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 17, 2020, 05:19:58 PM »
I'm not sure if they are properly factoring in the "stuck in the house, without escape, with an acceptable, available and fertile possible birth partner for months on end" variable

You don't remember college?

190
General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: June 17, 2020, 04:38:44 PM »
He is the most powerful world leader, after all.  The fall of a sparrow can be traced...

191
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 17, 2020, 04:37:50 PM »
According to the law of unintended consequences, but also the suspicion of the loss of workarounds,...

Quote
Drawing on data from the Great Recession and the 1918 flu pandemic, economists at the Brookings Institution estimate that the U.S. could see “on the order of 300,000 to 500,000 fewer births next year” as a result of the coronavirus. The analysis shows that the pandemic, even when it's over, will leave deep scars on society for years to come.

The six foot rule has consequences, too.

192
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 17, 2020, 04:16:53 PM »
Pretty sure FDR holds the crown for most destructive. If we adjust for inflation, I wouldn't count on Bush(43) being able to top the list either.

Show your homework?  Remember I qualified my estimation with "expensive, destructive, misguided and disastrous".

193
General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: June 17, 2020, 04:04:45 PM »
It's already bad enough to require a global effort to overcome it, but that's not happening (mainly due to Trump's intransigence).

Believe me, Bolsonaro is not affected in the least by anything Trump does in this crisis, nor is any other world leader.

Brazil is not alone in undercounting COVID-19 deaths.  By analyzing excess deaths in the US, the "official" count may be somewhere between 20,000-70,000 below actual totals.  Both the University of Washington and the head of the Harvard Global Health Department predict the samewise "official" US death total will exceed 200,000 by October 1.  In terms of rates and trends, that would mean that it took 129 days for the US to record the first 100,000 deaths and will record the next 100,000 deaths in the succeeding 128 days.

In the usual manner of confused statements, Trump is pushing to move the date of release of a vaccine up to October, without any medical guidance, and "the Administration" has said that it is unlikely that a vaccine will be available before January.  The latter statement doesn't say it will be available in January, just not before then.

194
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 17, 2020, 03:54:44 PM »
But none of this addresses my objection, which to answer your question was specifically about calling him a "militarist". I mean, maybe you believe that all Presidents for the last 30+ years have been militarists, so in that case I would probably actually agree with you. But if you are particularly calling Trump one, then I would say this is invalidated by his actual actions, as he is the least active President militarily in my lifetime.

This is most confusing.  By calling Trump a militarist, you say you agree with me because all Presidents for the last 30+ years have been militarists," but since I only talk about Trump you're not sure that you agree with me.  I'm not trying to qualify or classify any of those others, though at least one stands out for having launched the most expensive, destructive, misguided and disastrous military engagements of any President in the 208 years that came before him.

195
General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 17, 2020, 02:10:56 PM »
Quote
Textualism and originalism are not opposed theories.  The latter is a theory of Constitutional interpretation that effectively says the meaning of the Constitution does not change in broad sweeping ways to adapt to the current views of society, rather it means what it meant when the founders drafted.  It's not quite the literalist school that Kasandra asserts, but it's closer than many find comfortable.  It's rooted in the fundamental thought that changes to the Constitution have to occur through Amendments not judicial whimsy.  Generally speaking, it also defers a lot of authority to the States and their governments to fill in the gaps (and historically they have).

Textualism is a school of statutory interpretation and fundamentally it's rooted in the idea that the words Congress uses are the definitive expression of their intent on the manner.  Literally it originated in response to opinions that primarily turned on legislative history, such as transcripts from a single session of a House committee, or even quotes from the sponsor of a bill as to what it meant.  It rejected those kinds of inputs as legitimate sources for the opinions of the 535 members of Congress and the President.  That led to basic rules about how to interpret the meaning of the words used.  They reject strict constructionalism or plain meaning both of which avoid the principal that the words should be interpreted based on their common meaning at the time.

The differentiation between the terms textualism and originalism is murky.  Originalism only applies to interpreting the Constitution, whereas textualism applies to the Constitution and to laws passed by state and federal legislative bodies. Scalia could be described as either or both in combination depending on a given ruling he made or perhaps his mood on a given day.  Kagan once said about the SC judges, "We're all textualists now."  Believe her.

196
General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM »
I see. So textualism means interpreting old law based on new understanding of words, as opposed to the intent of the legislators?

No, it means the opposite and assumes a common understanding of the words in context.  If intent - meaning what they were thinking, but not what they included - then no religion that the Founders weren't already familiar with and had in mind would be included.  But that intent might have been in the minds of some of the Founders, but not others, for instance if one or more of them was thinking of Paganism, Hinduism or any of a host of animist beliefs.  If the Founders intent mattered, any judicial matters made based on scientific discoveries made since 1789 would be have to be judged in terms of whether the Founders had thought about them.

Actually no, that's a warped description of originalism (with an overlay of strict constructionism), which are other judicial philosophies (though strict constructionism is a rare philosophy and not well regarded even by conservative justices).  Take a look at the Wiki for Textualism it explains it what it is and how it differs from those philosophies with a fair bit of accuracy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism.  In particular, you may also want to read up on those two philosophies so that you can distinguish them going forward. 

There's no part of textualism that limits concepts to what the Founders had in mind.  Originalism does incorporate part of that concept for interpretation of the Constitution.  But even in interpreting the Constitution (which doesn't apply in this decision), advocates are not the literalists you are describing.

I actually had read that site and a few others before I posted and am comfortable with my understanding of the term.  I suppose there are a number of interpretive approaches to the Constitution in your exposition that you may be confusing here, but I'm not inclined to offer help to untangle them.

197
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 17, 2020, 01:57:04 PM »
Trump has increased the military budget far beyond actual needs** and threatens to send in troops every time some leader looks at him crosseyed.

First of all, if I was going to be pedantic I would ask you to provide support for this claim, because I do not believe it's accurate. But even if it was, you might want to stop and think about the fact that he's the only President since before Clinton to only threaten it and not actually do it. It's pretty myopic to call the least warlike President in 30 years a militarist because you don't like how he speaks.

You, never! ;). I think I made multiple claims, so I'll be pedantic and ask which one you doubt.  I would have to do research to find cross-eyed pictures of him.  As for the ** budget claim, I googled it, so I'll leave you to do the same.  As for threatening foreign leaders who are our allies, who hasn't he threatened?

Quote
As far as budget goes, I don't really know what sort of logic gets used at high levels. I am willing to believe the corporate welfare is going on just as much as 'arming up.' In fact I tend to believe that most arguments for a high military budget are at bottom a covert form of corporate welfare and nepotism, to put taxpayer monies in private pockets. I've viewed this as a form of large-scale embezzlement for a while. But none of that speaks to a guy who's not invaded anyone being called a militarist.

Trump never misses an opportunity to swash his buckle when it comes to military engagements.  He promised repeatedly to withdraw troops from overseas, but US military has about the same number as it did when Obama left office, not including the sizable increase in military contractors under the Trump Administration who aren't counted in those figures.  The difference is in his rhetoric.  I don't disagree that he's an empty suit - or uniform - wrt military engagements, but then again Bolton was almost all talk and rarely was able to get the government to commit to his harsh and uncompromising rhetorical demands.  He demanded regime change in at least half a dozen countries who have sailed on with those same leaders despite his aggressive posturing.  If anything, Bolton is an agent inclined toward precipitous chaos rather than constructive change.

Most important, Trump sees himself as a strong military leader who surrounds himself with strong military leaders whom he fires when they talk like strong military leaders rather than lackeys.  At bottom, he's a sniveling coward who will retreat if he can't bluff you into doing his bidding, unless of course he sues you.

198
General Comments / Re: Bolton
« on: June 17, 2020, 12:54:04 PM »
Trump has increased the military budget far beyond actual needs** and threatens to send in troops every time some leader looks at him crosseyed.  That is, except for traditional US allies who don't genuflect as often as he demands of Cabinet officers in our own country, in which case he threatens to cut US military support.  He is a wannabe militarist, but when I conjure up an image of him in that role I see Dukakis in a tutu doing figure 8's in a tank.

** Most likely to acquire votes and lock in support of Republicans in Congress, but still less than the first 4 years of Obama.

199
General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: June 17, 2020, 12:41:03 PM »
It's already bad enough to require a global effort to overcome it, but that's not happening (mainly due to Trump's intransigence).

Believe me, Bolsonaro is not affected in the least by anything Trump does in this crisis, nor is any other world leader.

I heard Robert Gates last night lamenting the decline of US influence and leadership in the world.  I wonder who he might have been thinking of when he said that...

200
General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 17, 2020, 11:43:33 AM »
I was adding my perspective to your (and other people's) comments.  I ack'd that I was in agreement with exactly what you said in part.  You ok with that?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 36