Jump to content

Paladin of Ice

Members
  • Content count

    2,601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paladin of Ice

  • Rank
    Winter's Bannerman
  • Birthday September 27

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York

Previous Fields

  • Name
    James

Recent Profile Visitors

3,648 profile views
  1. Paladin of Ice

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    You know, if you bring up something extraneous on a public forum, then when asked what you're talking about you respond "google it", you're not being helpful to your case or conversing in a forum. At all. I know there some kind of bullshit posted by Wikileaks that even they admit is partisan and is posted on r/The_Donald. Is that what you mean? Is this what you're talking about, and if so, why should it be treating with the slightest shred of credibility, considering everything involved there? Or did you mean this story from 2016? Maybe it's the story from 2018 about Haiti hiring a PR firm with connections to the Clintons to try to improve its image in Washington? The one from 2015 where Chelsea Clinton apparently tried to alert her parents to failures happening on the ground with Haiti's recovery from the earthquake? Is it the article by Dinesh D'fuckheadSouza accusing the Clintons of getting rich from Haiti? Maybe either communicate what you're implying or, if you're not willing to do that much, keep it to yourself?
  2. Paladin of Ice

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    A big loss for the country.
  3. Paladin of Ice

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    My counter would be that it's often better to know the BS that is circulating and how to retort to it if need be. It's unlikely you'll change the mind of the person who passed along the BS, but you might do it for others who are listening/reading online/whatever. It's always much to know how to respond if you know the talking point than if you get blindsided with it. I doubt he's capable of thinking that far ahead. Probably has a hard time thinking of or carin about the feelings thoughts, or drives of other people too.
  4. Paladin of Ice

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    As soon as anyone says that the second amendment and militias are about overthrowing the government, they have revealed a staggering amount of ignorance, indoctrination, or both. The reason it says militias in the second amendment is that a huge chunk of the Founding Fathers wanted absolutely nothing to do with keeping a large standing army. They viewed it as a constant threat to the liberty of the people and were deathly afraid of the role a military could play in either overtly overthrowing a government or more subtly bending a government to its will. No less than James Madison (future President/Chief Architect of the Constitution/writer of the Bill of Rights/co-author of the Federalist Papers) gave a number of speeches and wrote various letters that showed his utter loathing of standing armies, and that's despite the fact that Madison was one of the biggest voices in favor of a strong central government. He did his best to keep an army too difficult to use and in the Constitution, including putting it into the checks and balances equation by making the Peesident commander of the army and Congress the ones who needed to fund it. Even then, no bill could provide funding for the military for longer than 2 years at a time. ("The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years") And if you look up quotes from the Founding Fathers about standing armies, you'll find just about everyone from super federalist Alexander Hamilton to the chief of the anti-federalists, Thomas Jefferson, all had nasty things to say about keeping an army. So the original idea was not to have a standing army at all, but a citizen militia for defense. Trouble is, it takes a lot more to make an effective fighting force than a bunch of guys bringing their guns from home. You need supply lines to keep them fed, clothed, and armed. You need drilling and practice to keep army cohesion in place during battle, to keep skills sharp, (you can't exactly simulate a team of people loading and firing a cannon at home by yourself) and keep people knowledgeable about appropriate tactics. You need various kinds of expertise in technical matters like engineering, weapon maintenance, preferably good medical treatment, etc. It needs a wide array of competence at all levels, especially officers who know what they're doing and senior NCOs who can keep rank and file in line and execute orders from above effectively. There's a reason why, although it was an incredible taboo to criticize the militia publicly in those days, (ordinary people had romantic notions of how the ordinary militia had won against the British, which very much wasn't true, but contradicting it was the third rail of politics in those days) George Washington privately said in letters that the militia was worse than useless on actual military matters and from the moment he first came to office to just days before his death he called for a more professional military for the US and better officer training. State militias did have a backup purpose of being a check on Federal power grabs, (and in the South of enforcing the order of white supremacy and keeping slaves in line) but mostly they were intended to be the main line of defense because much of the founding generation were terrified that a large, professional, standing army would be used the same way Oliver Cromwell had used his army to overthrow parliament, or Caesar did to break the Roman Senate, or the various, horrific realties that had been the armies of The 30 Years War. The militias proved themselves horribly unsuited to that and were an outdated notion less than 20 years after the Constitution was first adopted, it was just never taken out of there.
  5. Paladin of Ice

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    I'm inclined to agree with True Kaniggit. Even if there is some clash where a few Syrian and Turks shoot each other or blow each other up, a full scale war is pretty unlikely. I remember in 2016 people whining about how Clinton's "hawkishness" was going to WWIII between Russia and the U.S. once a Russian plane got shot down by accident or something in a potential no fly zone. That ignored all the times during the Cold War that Soviet and American planes got shot down or once side got caught spying or <insert provocative action here> and the missiles didn't fly, because both sides knew there was nothing to gain and the provocation wasn't worth the cost of war. Hell, December 2016 a Turkish police officer assassinated a Russian ambassador on like TV. Russia and Turkey didn't go to war, they both shrugged and moved on, even though a lot of Turks were furious about what Russians and Russian supported Syria were doing in Aleppo. Same way we didn't hear shit from Russia after wiping out a group of their soldiers and Syrian patsies in 2018. Russia made up an excuse and some propaganda to save face and moved on. To a dictator like Erdogan, Putin, and Assad, a few deaths, especially among soldiers, are just the cost of doing business and staying in power, which is more than worth it. You make up a story, you spin it to look good, and you move on. The only X-factors are what happens if one side can't put a good spin on things, and exactly how determined Erdogan is to wipe out the Kurds and make sure that they're dealt with for good.
  6. Paladin of Ice

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    Yeah... I hate to agree, because I'm directly opposed to what the asshole fundamentalists want and I hate the hold right wing Christianity has had on the political direction of this country during my life, but government showing favor to certain religious groups over others is bad even when it's targeting people I don't agree with or who are using their religion as a club to hurt others.
  7. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach

    I’ve been so tempted to point this out a few times and have been biting my tongue about it. Thus far, at least.
  8. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach

    For those who are politically active, sure. They’d dump Fox if it doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. However those of us who are politically tuned in, pay attention to the news and are committed to a point of view are a small minority. (Historically, at least. Dumpster Fire is changing that.) If you hit some of those low info, don’t pay much attention to politics folks with Fox News turning against Trump, not to mention wishy washy independents and various others, it will have an impact. And Trump has zero room to spare from 2016. It takes very, very little to turn his narrow victory into a big defeat, especially now that so many independents and "Anyone but Clinton" types have seen his true colors. A small percentage of Republicans and low information voters sitting out an election instead of voting for him will more than do it. Just because you won’t get every, or even a majority of Republicans to change their minds doesn’t mean that a small to medium percentage of them doing so won’t have any effect.
  9. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach

    If someone is completely shameless and only cares about staying in office for as long as possible, even my non-lawyer brain could come up with some ways to screw with the 25th. Like, do only the votes of Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretaries count? If so, is the majority needed defined as a majority of cabinet positions, or just a majority of however many positions are currently filled? If it needs to be a quorum, especially a quorum of cabinet heads approved by the Senate, a President can keep the number of such positions filled below the quorum needed. If acting Secretaries don’t count towards the quorum or get a vote in removing the president, stock as many positions as possible with them. If they do get a vote, fire and replace as many as possible with acting Secretaries, since they can be put in place without congressional approval and the president can choose them simply based on loyalty. And that’s before we get to legal arguments about what satisfies the president being unable to perform their duties. And by the time a Republican president became so unpopular or publicly unable/unfit to be president that the Cabinet actually turned on him, I get the feeling it would be strictly academic anyway, since either an impeachment trial or an election would be likely to dispose of that president first. But if 3 years of Trump and what we saw during his campaign didn’t get Republicans to turn, what could?
  10. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach

    On top of all the issues with the 25th Amendment, (convincing the people with the most riding on Trump to vote to kick him out) are you ready for all the legal hairsplitting over whether acting Cabinet heads or deputies who’ve never been promoted even to acting Secretary get votes about removing the president? Because if you think unlikely bullshit legalese is being employed now to slow down Trump proceedings, wait until that subject comes up. Or we get to hear the argument about whether Trump has the authority keep removing cabinet heads until he lands on people he’s 100% sure will back him. It would be far from the most insane thing Barr and company have said about Presidential powers.
  11. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    Of course they don’t know the word, or even the concept. At least one of them is so blatantly corrupt he got banned from Wall Street, you mentioned the Mueller thing, and I think that they also tried to get someone to make up a fake Roy Moore sexual abuse story so that when the media picked it up they could shout “Gotcha!” Except WaPo investigated, found the story wasn’t credible, refused to publish it, and then uncovered their little scheme afterward. Couple of assholic dim bulbs. Here’s the whole Circle of Trump, in comic form: https://i.imgur.com/dMOfgN9.png
  12. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    I'm pretty sure that Rupert Murdoch has explicitly said that his prime interest is spreading his beliefs. Also pretty sure that all of the innumerable media outlets and newspapers and such that he owns go for hard right news. Hence why every editor at his 170+ newspapers pushed hard for the Iraq War, for example. They don't do it for the money. Without earning one more cent than they have now that family will be wealthy forever. (Unless someone in the family shows a Donald Trump level talent for losing money. And even then, the rich don't play by the same rules as the rest of us. For example there's Donald Trump, who had banks that kept bailing out because he owed them so much money that if he went down so would they.) Yeah, the Murdochs aren't going to hitch up to Trump so tightly that they go down with the ship, they don't do that. Their goal (or at least Rupert's goal, rumor has it that some of his sons aren't as ideological as he) is to push the world around to his point of view and values. And that's about more than money. The Camerons and Gingrichs and W. Bushes of the world will come and go, and at least as long as old Rupert is around, he'll work with them and prop them up and push them to move according to his vision.
  13. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    Eh, I think that Fox Management, if not Fox Opinion, saw him as an impediment and wanted him out of the way during the very early stages of the primary. Not sure why you're surprised they fell in line once he became top dog, that's what the right wing does. I gotta agree with you that Trump was definitely lucky to be facing the Right's favorite whipping boy whom they'd been slandering for 3 decades, though. Without that constant drumbeat of "CLINTON BAD!!!!1!1!", I'm inclined to think he would have lost. Given the fickleness of the American public though, and their determination to hand the country right back over to Republicans just after Democrats get done fixing the last republican fuck up, who knows. Also gotta agree that the news side of "Fox News" being either anti-Trump or even just honest would be a whole new zone for us. Currently they don't even allow for clips of Shep Smith calling bullshit on Trump to stay online,lately I tried searching for certain clips where either news anchors on Fox called out Trump for lying or Trump made himself look bad talking to Fox personalities and they're nowhere to be found. They only exist if another news organization (like CNN) did a story about them, but it looks like otherwise Fox keeps the originals offline and cries copyright when anyone tries to upload them.
  14. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    That's what I was thinking too. Although back then, Trump was the new hotness, now he's starting to get played out. For all the bluster, his fans have had doubts about him and moments of disagreement. If Fox isn't covering for him 24/7, who knows how many might get their doubts magnified enough not to canvas and put up signs, or even note to vote. (Basically, take that one woman interviewed being shocked to learn that the Mueller Report didn't clear Trump because all she'd ever done is watch right wing media and multiply it throughout the country.)
  15. Paladin of Ice

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    Just because it got missed at the bottom of the last page: Bernie Sanders got a couple of stents put in for a blocked artery after experiencing chest pains. He's cancelled all campaign events for the time being.
×