The Next President is...

[pawnman]

16 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Tulsi said with regard to whether Assad is a war criminal - March 2019:

“I think that the evidence needs to be gathered, and as I have said before, if there is evidence that he has committed war crimes, he should be prosecuted as such,” Gabbard told CNN host Dana Bash during a town hall event in Austin, Texas.

Previously, the DoD, US intelligence community, and UN determined that Assad was responsible for the April 2017 chemical weapon attack on his own people.  So she does not believe our own intelligence analysis?  Why not?  She doesn't address that from what I could find.  Seems weird.  

So for a community that often derides leadership for acting without evidence, preaches innocent until proven guilty, etc...you're upset that she called for gathering evidence and actually having a trial for war crimes?

[slc]

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

Yeah but if he had an actual press conference he might have to answer super duper unfair questions from the lame stream media. Questions like:

why did you incite an insurrection?

why do you continue to deny the results of an election virtually all republicans acknowledge was legitimate?

why did you try to pressure the Vice President into doing something he has no constitutional power to do?

 

I suspect this is why you're seeing mainly pre-recorded messages from the president at this point. Yet, somehow he manages to botch those too. 

Will be interesting to see how often our incoming president utilizes the above forum

[Swamp Yankee]

30 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So for a community that often derides leadership for acting without evidence, preaches innocent until proven guilty, etc...you're upset that she called for gathering evidence and actually having a trial for war crimes?

There is evidence; widely acknowledged evidence (DoD, US intelligence, UN, UK).  Tulsi's statement suggested that such evidence either didn't exist or was just a wisp of rumor.   If the only source was the New York Times or the Epoch Times, she might have a point.  But that isn't the case here. 

[Swamp Yankee]

32 minutes ago, slc said:

Will be interesting to see how often our incoming president utilizes the above forum

Agreed.  It will be a bellwether.  His time in the Obama administration as a conventional politician suggests he will conduct press conferences as a matter of course.  His time campaigning when he went into hiding for quite some time until the debates suggests otherwise.  

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, slc said:

Will be interesting to see how often our incoming president utilizes the above forum

Clearly Trump avoided press conferences because he couldn't come up with credible responses in real time.  On Twitter he could make outlandish claims without being challenged.  And his base ate it up due to confirmation bias.  

I should add that I'm referring to solo press conferences in which the President takes the podium alone.  In his first three years, Obama did 25.  Trump did 9. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[jazzdude]

His time campaigning when he went into hiding for quite some time until the debates suggests otherwise.  

It's a legitimate strategy, especially if you think your opponent is going to dig themselves in a hole.

All things being equal, if you're objective is to win a vote, the fewer times you are compared, the better your odds (though name recognition can skew the voting). Just like a bye round in a tournament. It's why you see late entrants into primaries, and bigger names don't formally announce their intent until a few debates have past: the fewer times your views are challenged and debated, the fewer chances you have to lose, and the better your odds are off winning. Especially if they actively monitor the earlier debates and take the most popular opinions from the other (not yet) competitors to fine tune their platform, while the competitors who declared their intent to run tear each other apart.

ETA: you see both parties do this. It's likely also a reason why Trump stopped doing press conferences, or didn't want to debate. Every time Trump speaks publicly, the could be risking alienating moderate Republican voters. They might not vote for Biden, but they may just not vote. So if you don't have a official public opinion or position, there's nothing to debate against. And tweets could be argued to be an "in the moment" our off the cuff response that doesn't reflect the official position on a matter. (Like the whole mollygate debacle at Laughlin, though those IPs lost that argument, while many on the outside said it's just informal/joking talk between friends)

[Swamp Yankee]

45 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

It's a legitimate strategy, especially if you think your opponent is going to dig themselves in a hole.

All things being equal, if you're objective is to win a vote, the fewer times you are compared, the better your odds (though name recognition can skew the voting). Just like a bye round in a tournament. It's why you see late entrants into primaries, and bigger names don't formally announce their intent until a few debates have past: the fewer times your views are challenged and debated, the fewer chances you have to lose, and the better your odds are off winning. Especially if they actively monitor the earlier debates and take the most popular opinions from the other (not yet) competitors to fine tune their platform, while the competitors who declared their intent to run tear each other apart.

ETA: you see both parties do this. It's likely also a reason why Trump stopped doing press conferences, or didn't want to debate. Every time Trump speaks publicly, the could be risking alienating moderate Republican voters. They might not vote for Biden, but they may just not vote. So if you don't have a official public opinion or position, there's nothing to debate against. And tweets could be argued to be an "in the moment" our off the cuff response that doesn't reflect the official position on a matter. (Like the whole mollygate debacle at Laughlin, though those IPs lost that argument, while many on the outside said it's just informal/joking talk between friends)

 

Point taken.  If Biden was employing a strategy to let Trump talk himself into a hole (it worked) then I expect press conferences per usual pre-Trump.   

[jazzdude]

Shifting gears, it's pretty ridiculous that Democrats in Congress are pushing for Pence to invoke the 25th amendment in a bid to remove Trump.

I think that would set a dangerous precedent for using the 25th amendment when opinions are different, and not the president being incapacitated. I guess you could argue Trump is mentally ill, but maybe he's just an idiot or a dick.

Congress has it's own process for removing a president, so how about using that?

[pawnman]

6 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Shifting gears, it's pretty ridiculous that Democrats in Congress are pushing for Pence to invoke the 25th amendment in a bid to remove Trump.

I think that would set a dangerous precedent for using the 25th amendment when opinions are different, and not the president being incapacitated. I guess you could argue Trump is mentally ill, but maybe he's just an idiot or a dick.

Congress has it's own process for removing a president, so how about using that?

Or just wait a week.  

Crazy, I know.

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Clearly Trump avoided press conferences because he couldn't come up with credible responses in real time.  On Twitter he could make outlandish claims without being challenged.  And his base ate it up due to confirmation bias.  

I should add that I'm referring to solo press conferences in which the President takes the podium alone.  In his first three years, Obama did 25.  Trump did 9. 

Trump went to Twitter because he was able to remove layers of filters from what his actual message was. He was a step ahead as a politician in that regard. The media of course derided his decision to use Twitter because it of course gave the media less importance. 

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

There is evidence; widely acknowledged evidence (DoD, US intelligence, UN, UK).  Tulsi's statement suggested that such evidence either didn't exist or was just a wisp of rumor.   If the only source was the New York Times or the Epoch Times, she might have a point.  But that isn't the case here. 

Dude very few people have seen that evidence and Tulsi likely never saw it when she discussed it. Weve all seen intel reports and seen how wildly off base they can be. She was an Army officer she probably remembers that too. She provided a voice of caution. Obama was a warhawk who campaigned on peace, then turned around and entered us into other conflicts most Americans never heard of and deepened out stakes in the two existing conflicts he inherited. That didn't sit well with a lot of Democrats who thought of themselves as the party of peace. The same intel community reported with consensus WMDs were in Iraq. It is considered one of the greatest national intelligence failures of all time and is widely discussed in intel academia. I'm not going to hold a grudge against anyone who said "wait a minute, let's make sure we got our shit straight this time before entering another cluster fuck." 

[jazzdude]

Or just wait a week.  
Crazy, I know.

That's an option too.

However, impeachment, if successful, would end Trump's ability to hold a federal office in the future, as well as be a formal condemnation from Congress on his actions.

So those are the only reasons I can think of to do it this late in his term. Outside pure politics.

[FLEA]

Well, in a move absolutely noone could have predicted... Angela Merkel sides with Trump regarding Twitter ban. 

https://amp.thenationalnews.com/world/germany-s-angela-merkel-leads-european-fears-of-problematic-twitter-ban-on-trump-1.1144394

[slackline]

29 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

That's an option too.

However, impeachment, if successful, would end Trump's ability to hold a federal office in the future, as well as be a formal condemnation from Congress on his actions.

So those are the only reasons I can think of to do it this late in his term. Outside pure politics.

To me, screw politics.  His actions, at the very least for the last 6ish months, have been beyond the pale. Time to show everyone else that wants to blatantly lie that there are repercussions.  It would also serve to hedge all the extremists on the D side since a precedent will have been set.  Impeach or 25th amendment works for me.  

[jazzdude]

To me, screw politics.  His actions, at the very least for the last 6ish months, have been beyond the pale. Time to show everyone else that wants to blatantly lie that there are repercussions.  It would also serve to hedge all the extremists on the D side since a precedent will have been set.  Impeach or 25th amendment works for me.  

I agree with your sentiment, to include he should be impeached.

But I still believe there are Dems that actually don't care about Trump's actions, only that he is a political enemy, and to not let a crises go to waste for political gain.

Put another way, is doing the right action for the wrong reasons ethical?

[slackline]

Just now, jazzdude said:

I agree with your sentiment, to include he should be impeached.

But I still believe there are Dems that actually don't care about Trump's actions, only that he is a political enemy, and to not let a crises go to waste for political gain.

Put another way, is doing the right action for the wrong reasons ethical?

That's a great question!  I think when the right thing is done for the wrong reasons and the negative fallout is outweighed by the positive outcome, you still have the one leg to stand on of "doing the right thing". Rarely, if ever, do politicians (R or D) do the right thing for the right reasons.  Almost always done because it's "conveniently aligned" with their ulterior motives.

Not married to that position though.

[Swamp Yankee]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Dude very few people have seen that evidence and Tulsi likely never saw it when she discussed it. Weve all seen intel reports and seen how wildly off base they can be. She was an Army officer she probably remembers that too. She provided a voice of caution. Obama was a warhawk who campaigned on peace, then turned around and entered us into other conflicts most Americans never heard of and deepened out stakes in the two existing conflicts he inherited. That didn't sit well with a lot of Democrats who thought of themselves as the party of peace. The same intel community reported with consensus WMDs were in Iraq. It is considered one of the greatest national intelligence failures of all time and is widely discussed in intel academia. I'm not going to hold a grudge against anyone who said "wait a minute, let's make sure we got our shit straight this time before entering another cluster ." 

Absolutely there is a very high standard of proof before a conviction or launching sorties.  Again, the issue here is that Tulsi's statements aren't hedging.  She's acting as if there is no/minimal evidence.  Not true.  

Edited January 12, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Swamp Yankee]

48 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Well, in a move absolutely noone could have predicted... Angela Merkel sides with Trump regarding Twitter ban. 

https://amp.thenationalnews.com/world/germany-s-angela-merkel-leads-european-fears-of-problematic-twitter-ban-on-trump-1.1144394

Too bad Trump missed a chance to rub Angela's shoulders like W did.  Then again, she is way above the Jeffrey Epstein-approved age range.  

Edited January 12, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Swamp Yankee]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Trump went to Twitter because he was able to remove layers of filters from what his actual message was. He was a step ahead as a politician in that regard. The media of course derided his decision to use Twitter because it of course gave the media less importance. 

A press conference is unfiltered.  Yes, the media poses the questions, but that's never stopped a President from ignoring those questions and saying what they want. The media's subsequent positive or negative interpretation of a press conference, Twitter post or pre-recorded statement is what's filtered/biased/etc.  

[jazzdude]

A press conference (or really any official communication) is likely heavily filtered by the White House administration staff, likely with legal and policy reviews by administration action officers to ensure they are on message (and consistent with what they've been messaging), and to ensure whoever is delivering the message (whether it's the President or someone else) is prepared for anticipated questions or reactions, especially if they are taking questions.

Twitter, as Trump used it, appeared to be very unfiltered. Maybe it was a well thought out communication, maybe it was just a knee jerk reaction or spur of the moment thought that popped into his mind. Hard to tell it apart, which made it confusing for many people used to seeing official statements (or you could say legacy types of communications).

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Absolutely there is a very high standard of proof before a conviction or launching sorties.  Again, the issue here is that Tulsi's statements aren't hedging.  She's acting as if there is no/minimal evidence.  Not true.  

Seems like you're really committed to calling "gather evidence and try him in court" a defense of Assad.
The whole point is not to launch sorties.  Because we've seen that it often causes more problems than it solves...Is Libya better off without Gaddaffi?

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

A press conference is unfiltered.  Yes, the media poses the questions, but that's never stopped a President from ignoring those questions and saying what they want. The media's subsequent positive or negative interpretation of a press conference, Twitter post or pre-recorded statement is what's filtered/biased/etc.  

Uhhhh, so we agree its filtered then right? Are you just rambling at this point?

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Absolutely there is a very high standard of proof before a conviction or launching sorties.  Again, the issue here is that Tulsi's statements aren't hedging.  She's acting as if there is no/minimal evidence.  Not true.  

Mhmm, because we've never attacked targets accidentally with incomplete intel. Come on man, are you new at this? Do you really trust our intel apparatus that much? They are awful!

[FLEA]

20 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Mhmm, because we've never attacked targets accidentally with incomplete intel. Come on man, are you new at this? Do you really trust our intel apparatus that much? They are awful!

Thinking about it further. I'm not even sure it matters. From Tulsi's point of view, I think the wider interest is we don't need to be policing every world dictator who gasses his people. Its certainly tragic and has a human costs, but shes clearly stated that the human costs of war should be bared by the US alone. Taken more holistically, and having looked up her remarks, I think she's quite clear her stance on international politics is one where we need to be willing to accept a few dictators in the world. I can't disagree with that.

[jazzdude]

Thinking about it further. I'm not even sure it matters. From Tulsi's point of view, I think the wider interest is we don't need to be policing every world dictator who gasses his people. Its certainly tragic and has a human costs, but shes clearly stated that the human costs of war should be bared by the US alone. Taken more holistically, and having looked up her remarks, I think she's quite clear her stance on international politics is one where we need to be willing to accept a few dictators in the world. I can't disagree with that.

I thought our involvement in Syria was largely to oppose Russian interests in the region, and Assad's actions against his own people gave us justification to take military action against a government that supports Russian interests, and help install a government friendly to US interests.