Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Found this entertaining Because screw that bitch and her "it's my turn" mentality. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted Images



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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 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!

My point isn't about evidence that will prove a court case or allow military action.  It's about Tulsi's honest or willful ignorance of a broad agreement that Assad is a bad guy.  Her statements ignore that agreement as well as suggest that there is no evidence and that the claims of Assad's war crimes are fabricated.  She should acknowledge that at a minimum, there are legitimate suspicions about his culpability.  That's why she clearly comes off as an apologist. 

And yeah, I've had to deal with bad/incomplete intel.  

Anyways, I might be splitting hairs.  The horse is so dead at this point it's glue.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Citing 'censorship' concerns, North Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter
https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/idaho-internet-provider-blocks-facebook-and-twitter/293-867cc22b-fb90-4142-a296-8d800d2a03fb
That's a foul, but legal based on the policies pushed by Republicans. An ISP should not have the power to unilaterally decide to block internet traffic.

But it's put Republicans in a weird spot: they don't want ISPs regulated or treated as common infrastructure, but that means that an ISP, as a business, can block whatever they want. They haven't really done so in the past because there hasn't been a business case for doing so (although streaming service can and do get throttled)

So the GOP (and the region served by that ISP) is reaping what the GOP sowed, and suddenly are surprised that their political platform has real consequences.

When you put all your faith in the free market, you are putting your faith in the market keeping the same values as you; otherwise, you can get screwed over real quick. And now conservatives (primarily on the far right) are getting screwed by the system they profess to love.

So it's internet access a right? Or is it a luxury? Because right now conservatives are screaming it's a right, and yet have blocked efforts for years to have internet treated as infrastructure, or to provide access to the poor ("Obama phone"), or to force ISPs to improve the physical internet infrastructure especially to rural areas.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


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.

 

How's that strategy worked out for us, historically speaking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever happens in the wake of the Capitol riots, you can rest assure the DC types will handle it in such a way as to create the worse possible outcome for everyone, especially the rest of the country who wasn't there taking part...  They seem to excel at that. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pbar said:

Well, whatever happens in the wake of the Capitol riots, you can rest assure the DC types will handle it in such a way as to create the worse possible outcome for everyone, especially the rest of the country who wasn't there taking part...  They seem to excel at that. 

I agree they'll mismanage the crap out of it, but I think you're forgetting that many state capitols dealt with identical issues that day, and are under threat of further violence on inauguration day, so yeah, no one else was involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 8:34 AM, Swamp Yankee said:

I like Tulsi's stated positions on many issues, which are moderate and for the most part sensible.  However, something isn't quite right.  On Rogan and other podcasts she spends almost all her time railing against the left and virtually no time discussing/defending her political positions.  My cynical side thinks that she is a "democrat" in order to stand apart from the crowd.  Once her awareness grows beyond the IDW, she'll reposition herself as a republican and drop some of the more progressive positions she claims to have but never discusses.  If true, it is deceptive, although I may still be in alignment with much of her platform. 

It's because many of her positions are "Russia adjacent." I think she has some good qualities, but her foreign policy views are, frankly, extremely naive. Reference the buzz term she leans on during many of her interviews: "regime change wars." She dresses up her opinion with things that make sense (i.e. "military's mission is defense of America," etc.), but it is not at all coupled with the realpolitik of our modern world where smaller nations states fall into the orbits of larger ones.

She has some valid points, but her fundamental conclusion and orientation is wrong.

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

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 would agree with her in terms of we don't need to police the world, and I also think it's defensible to accept a few dictators in the world. IMO, our whole problem with AFG/IRQ (part 2), was how we fought. We went in full-bore when we should have gone in with extremely and narrowly tailored objectives; instead we went in trying to "take the cake."

Edited by ViperMan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

That's a foul, but legal based on the policies pushed by Republicans. An ISP should not have the power to unilaterally decide to block internet traffic.

But it's put Republicans in a weird spot: they don't want ISPs regulated or treated as common infrastructure, but that means that an ISP, as a business, can block whatever they want. They haven't really done so in the past because there hasn't been a business case for doing so (although streaming service can and do get throttled)

So the GOP (and the region served by that ISP) is reaping what the GOP sowed, and suddenly are surprised that their political platform has real consequences.

When you put all your faith in the free market, you are putting your faith in the market keeping the same values as you; otherwise, you can get screwed over real quick. And now conservatives (primarily on the far right) are getting screwed by the system they profess to love.

So it's internet access a right? Or is it a luxury? Because right now conservatives are screaming it's a right, and yet have blocked efforts for years to have internet treated as infrastructure, or to provide access to the poor ("Obama phone"), or to force ISPs to improve the physical internet infrastructure especially to rural areas.

This one does.

I thought Ajit Pai was a total piece of shit. His is a prototypical example of the revolving door of lobbyists becoming a governing authority and then returning to industry after having had their impact.

The basic issue with not regulating it as common infrastructure is that the government has granted monopolies to ISPs and other utility companies to use public easements and rights-of-way to install their infrastructure. Not everyone has access to that. Not everyone is allowed to have access to that. So there are companies that have been given special privilege to conduct their business, and hence, should be regulated appropriately. That means Net Neutrality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
My point isn't about evidence that will prove a court case or allow military action.  It's about Tulsi's honest or willful ignorance of a broad agreement that Assad is a bad guy.  Her statements ignore that agreement as well as suggest that there is no evidence and that the claims of Assad's war crimes are fabricated.  She should acknowledge that at a minimum, there are legitimate suspicions about his culpability.  That's why she clearly comes off as an apologist. 
And yeah, I've had to deal with bad/incomplete intel.  
Anyways, I might be splitting hairs.  The horse is so dead at this point it's glue.  
 
To be fair, he probably charmed her when she went to privately meet with him on her own.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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.

It’s a waste of time and reiterates why 90% of Congress is worthless; and one of the frustrations that influenced the Trump movement in the first place. Maybe if Congress actually did their job it would help regain some trust in the very institutions we need to rebuild the political unity in this country.

After recent events, I wouldn’t worry about Trump even thinking about reelection. “Formal condemnation”, who cares? There has been plenty of condemnation from both sides, maybe focus on why Capitol police officers just let the rioters waltz in, or unfuck the NDAA that you passed several months late, literally anything having to do with their jobs.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
This one does.
I thought Ajit Pai was a total piece of shit. His is a prototypical example of the revolving door of lobbyists becoming a governing authority and then returning to industry after having had their impact.
The basic issue with not regulating it as common infrastructure is that the government has granted monopolies to ISPs and other utility companies to use public easements and rights-of-way to install their infrastructure. Not everyone has access to that. Not everyone is allowed to have access to that. So there are companies that have been given special privilege to conduct their business, and hence, should be regulated appropriately. That means Net Neutrality.


Makes two of us then. You're assessment is spot on.

It's been frustrating though seeing so many conservatives against net neutrality because they viewed it as anti business, and that the free market will self correct to deliver the "best" product or service, not realizing that regulations should be in place to stop exactly what is happening now with ISPs. That, or they just accept dealing with Comcast and their monopoly in many markets as a fact of life.

There are other tech issues that are interesting as well. I mentioned the shift to electronic banking earlier: should the government have some form of electronic banking not reliant on private banks or credit card companies to complete financial transactions? What about email and the servers to support it (after all, the federal government funds USPS for mail delivery, and email is much the modern letter)? It helps support our right to openly communicate. You could even argue that extend to social media platforms, though I'm not sure how that would be implemented (not sure how the government can regulate Facebook without giving Facebook a list of things people can't say, which would violate the spirit of the 1st amendment). I don't have the answers to these questions, and they are small issues, but they are interesting enough to merit more investigation/discussion on how technology changes our society, and what government needs to do to ensure our basic/fundamental rights are upheld.

Sure, some conservatives may chuck spears saying that's not the founder's intent, but times change and new technologies are being invented. It's just like when the left says the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms that existed in the founder's times: it's stupid, and misses the original intent of the founder's by being over simplistic and taking an overly literal interpretation of the constitution.
Link to post
Share on other sites



It’s a waste of time and reiterates why 90% of Congress is worthless; and one of the frustrations that influenced the Trump movement in the first place. Maybe if Congress actually did their job it would help regain some trust in the very institutions we need to rebuild the political unity in this country.
After recent events, I wouldn’t worry about Trump even thinking about reelection. “Formal condemnation”, who cares? There has been plenty of condemnation from both sides, maybe focus on why Capitol police officers just let the rioters waltz in, or un the NDAA that you passed several months late, literally anything having to do with their jobs.


I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, and yes, Congress has it's own issues. But that's okay, and I think the fact respectful conversation from different viewpoints is still happening is great, and lends itself to rebuilding a sense of unity within our country.

Congress is doing their job as being a check on the executive branch. And yes, practically it doesn't change the outcome. But if successful, it officially captures and condemns the actions of the President. It might not affect us as individual citizens directly, but it does matter in rebuilding trust in the office of the President and Congress (as a check/balance on the executive branch). And at worst, Congress wastes 2 weeks, which they've wasted on lesser things.

On the NDAA, yes, it was late, but Trump vetoed it for not including the right to sue social media companies (elimination of section 230 protections), which has absolutely nothing to do with defense, and required Congress to revote to override the veto. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the NDAA approved until after the administration change.

Then Senate Republicans tied increased stimulus payments (that Trump tweeted he wanted) to the elimination of section 230. I think Trump saw the writing on the wall that he was going to eventually get blocked on social media (only reason he hadn't was twitter felt as president, they should allow him to continue to use their platform, which I'm sure brought a lot of people into twitter to see the craziness), and that he'd have no legal recourse to get unblocked because twitter is a private business that is protected by section 230.

Does anyone think Trump is going to quietly fade away after he leaves office, like previous presidents traditionally have? And yes, Obama did somewhat break that tradition with public criticism of Trump, which was disappointing, but hasn't seemed to be in the forefront of any political movement, or at least has started out of the media's eye. But Trump has plenty of people who believe he was the rightful winner of the election, who believe it enough to break into Congress.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other crazy thing in all of this is our election timelines. With faster modes of travel (or the ability to telecommute), modern communications, and technology to help speed up counting votes, why is our election so far from our from the actual inauguration?

I can see in the past needing time to:
- Manually count votes by hand
- Travel on foot or by horse to aggregate results at multiple levels
-Having electors gather and vote
-Having congressmen travel to deliver that vote to Congress
-Time to communicate the overall electoral votes and winner back to their home states and to the candidates
-Travel for the winning candidate to DC (if they aren't already there)

I can see why that took months originally, but maybe we should shorten it given modern technologies we enjoy now, versus keeping lame duck administrations who's only reason not to do something crazy in that time period is tradition (which arguably has now been broken).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the impeachment debates going on right now.  Absolutely disgusted by 2 things: the Trump apology tour by republicans, and the zero responsibility accepted by anyone on either side of the aisle.  Everything is the fault of the other guy, none of anyone's actions, vitriol and rhetoric caused any of the current problems.  It was all caused by the other guys...  Time for every single one of them to be voted out.  Zero incumbents should be voted back in for the next few elections!  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, slackline said:

Listening to the impeachment debates going on right now.  Absolutely disgusted by 2 things: the Trump apology tour by republicans, and the zero responsibility accepted by anyone on either side of the aisle.  Everything is the fault of the other guy, none of anyone's actions, vitriol and rhetoric caused any of the current problems.  It was all caused by the other guys...  Time for every single one of them to be voted out.  Zero incumbents should be voted back in for the next few elections!  

Be nice to see the states get together and impose term limits and start using the 17th amendment by state legislators pick the two Senators from their state. That way they are answerable to their state house not their donors. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

Be nice to see the states get together and impose term limits and start using the 17th amendment by state legislators pick the two Senators from their state. That way they are answerable to their state house not their donors. 

 

3 hours ago, slackline said:

Listening to the impeachment debates going on right now.  Absolutely disgusted by 2 things: the Trump apology tour by republicans, and the zero responsibility accepted by anyone on either side of the aisle.  Everything is the fault of the other guy, none of anyone's actions, vitriol and rhetoric caused any of the current problems.  It was all caused by the other guys...  Time for every single one of them to be voted out.  Zero incumbents should be voted back in for the next few elections!  

Agreed on the impeachment debates.  Ultimately a waste of time.  No way will it get 2/3 of the Senate.  Trump will go back to Mar-a-Lago saying, 'See? They tried again! Tremendous hoax! I'm the best President in history and did nothing wrong!'   That would be a gross mischaracterization on Trump's part, but he won't care.  Same thing as the Russian investigation.  Somehow Trump was able to spin it as a 'hoax'. Which was also a mischaracterization given that there were 34 indictments, 7 guilty pleas, and 5 prison terms.  Regardless, his base bought it just as they will in this second impeachment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

 

Agreed on the impeachment debates.  Ultimately a waste of time.  No way will it get 2/3 of the Senate.  Trump will go back to Mar-a-Lago saying, 'See? They tried again! Tremendous hoax! I'm the best President in history and did nothing wrong!'   That would be a gross mischaracterization on Trump's part, but he won't care.  Same thing as the Russian investigation.  Somehow Trump was able to spin it as a 'hoax'. Which was also a mischaracterization given that there were 34 indictments, 7 guilty pleas, and 5 prison terms.  Regardless, his base bought it just as they will in this second impeachment. 

🤣 careful saying that on here.  Some ardent believers in the hoaxness of Russia and Trump.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the dumbest side effects of this ordeal is that the California covid shitstorm currently happening is going to be completely swept under the rug. 
 

It would be nice if blue states with insane lockdown rules had to answer the mail when they spike just as bad or worse than the evil  Floridas of the world.  But I guess trump and the far right taking a steaming dump in the halls of the capitol kind of overshadows that. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pooter said:

One of the dumbest side effects of this ordeal is that the California covid shitstorm currently happening is going to be completely swept under the rug. 
 

It would be nice if blue states with insane lockdown rules had to answer the mail when they spike just as bad or worse than the evil  Floridas of the world.  But I guess trump and the far right taking a steaming dump in the halls of the capitol kind of overshadows that. 

The media and I guess much of the populace has the attention span of a fruit fly. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 7:17 PM, jazzdude said:

Makes two of us then. You're assessment is spot on.

It's been frustrating though seeing so many conservatives against net neutrality because they viewed it as anti business, and that the free market will self correct to deliver the "best" product or service, not realizing that regulations should be in place to stop exactly what is happening now with ISPs. That, or they just accept dealing with Comcast and their monopoly in many markets as a fact of life.

There are other tech issues that are interesting as well. I mentioned the shift to electronic banking earlier: should the government have some form of electronic banking not reliant on private banks or credit card companies to complete financial transactions? What about email and the servers to support it (after all, the federal government funds USPS for mail delivery, and email is much the modern letter)? It helps support our right to openly communicate. You could even argue that extend to social media platforms, though I'm not sure how that would be implemented (not sure how the government can regulate Facebook without giving Facebook a list of things people can't say, which would violate the spirit of the 1st amendment). I don't have the answers to these questions, and they are small issues, but they are interesting enough to merit more investigation/discussion on how technology changes our society, and what government needs to do to ensure our basic/fundamental rights are upheld.

Sure, some conservatives may chuck spears saying that's not the founder's intent, but times change and new technologies are being invented. It's just like when the left says the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms that existed in the founder's times: it's stupid, and misses the original intent of the founder's by being over simplistic and taking an overly literal interpretation of the constitution.

Some interesting analysis, to be sure.

In a purely "capitalist" world, sure, let Comcast operate unchecked. Until then, though, they need gutter bumpers.

In regards to banking (et al), I could see good reason for lots of additional government services to be made available, the follow-up question then becomes "who would use it?" Checking accounts are already free...can't get cheaper than that unless you decide to pay someone to have a government checking account! My banking is already super convenient - I never even have to go to one. I have the service, but it's basically invisible to me.

Either way, I think we're witnessing the beginnings of the shift to broad decentralization of many technologies and services - banking is only one such instance. Reference Bitcoin, and all of the other digital currencies cropping up/gaining acceptance. Personally, I think if you can figure out what the societal/global impact of mass decentralization and removal of "middlemen" across the board is going to be, you'd be in a great place to predict the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 8:13 PM, jazzdude said:

The other crazy thing in all of this is our election timelines. With faster modes of travel (or the ability to telecommute), modern communications, and technology to help speed up counting votes, why is our election so far from our from the actual inauguration?

I can see in the past needing time to:
- Manually count votes by hand
- Travel on foot or by horse to aggregate results at multiple levels
-Having electors gather and vote
-Having congressmen travel to deliver that vote to Congress
-Time to communicate the overall electoral votes and winner back to their home states and to the candidates
-Travel for the winning candidate to DC (if they aren't already there)

I can see why that took months originally, but maybe we should shorten it given modern technologies we enjoy now, versus keeping lame duck administrations who's only reason not to do something crazy in that time period is tradition (which arguably has now been broken).

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality.

On the topic of elections, though, one thing I do think we could move towards is what Negatory brought up earlier: ranked-choice voting, or at least some sort of voting scheme where it's not simple 1-on-1. Computerized voting systems eliminate the difficulty inherent in counting using such schemes and would be a welcome modification of our democratic process.

The current system breeds polarization and also drives "grouping" where it wouldn't otherwise take place (i.e. I'm not aligned with faction "A", but I'm more aligned with it than faction "B", so I'm with "A"). Having some version of a ranked-choice system would allow moderate voices to prevail, as the motivation to vote out of fear would evaporate (i.e. voting against the other guy - which was our last two elections, at least). Then the winner would be closest to center and if it wasn't your guy that won, the one that did would very likely be pretty close to what you wanted anyway, increasing your trust in government. All for a very simple adaptation to boot.

Instead, we get one clown show or another driving the bus. Personally, I love being in the back seat when numb nuts up front is going full-scale deflection one way or the other.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...