Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
La Albearceleste

US Politics: What Price Loyalty?

Recommended Posts

Are we seriously about to get in a shooting war with Russia?  Over SYRIA?  It's hard to see how American bombing is going to make anything better over there.  But if America and Russia start shooting at each other (or even just shooting missiles near each other), things could get a whole lot worse for people in Russia, America, Iran, Turkey, Israel, the list goes on and on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maithanet said:

Are we seriously about to get in a shooting war with Russia?  Over SYRIA?  It's hard to see how American bombing is going to make anything better over there.  But if America and Russia start shooting at each other (or even just shooting missiles near each other), things could get a whole lot worse for people in Russia, America, Iran, Turkey, Israel, the list goes on and on. 

Mass murderers cannot be permitted to inflict their madness on innocents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Just a general cybersecurity bill to protection election machines, etc.  Not sure it could pass the Senate (although really the question is whether it could pass McConnell, because the votes are there).

Oh, sure, I could see that as a possibility.

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Retirements would help, and I think that threatened House members like Comstock or Fitzpatrick could be brought along in their attempt to establish independence.  I'm seeing Comstock ads in Virginia and they're pounding her "independence" hard. 

True Comstock and a handful of similar members would be in a really tough stop.  I guess I just don't really entertain this possibility because, like I said, I do think Ryan still has presidential ambitions, and that'd be a really stupid move if he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

What in Ryan's venal career of peddling self-serving, half-bright, plutocratic bullshit makes you think he is personally interest in any of those things?

Nothing.  He's stepping aside to get off the ship before it sinks, in the hope that he can be President in 2024 or 2028.  And so the political calculus has changed, it's a matter of what he thinks will look good to voters in 6-10 years.  And there's a good chance some sort of bipartisan "I tried to avert this disaster!" will look good to voters then.  It's a matter of how badly Ryan thinks the Trump presidency is going to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Mass murderers cannot be permitted to inflict their madness on innocents.

So we should engage in mass murder to ensure those mass murderers are out of power?  How did that go in Iraq? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maithanet said:

So we should engage in mass murder to ensure those mass murderers are out of power?  How did that go in Iraq? 

Yes.

Take the lessons of Iraq, apply them to Syria. That's the only way. We don't have all the answers, we can only do what's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Nothing.  He's stepping aside to get off the ship before it sinks, in the hope that he can be President in 2024 or 2028.  And so the political calculus has changed, it's a matter of what he thinks will look good to voters in 6-10 years.  And there's a good chance some sort of bipartisan "I tried to avert this disaster!" will look good to voters then.  It's a matter of how badly Ryan thinks the Trump presidency is going to go. 

Fair enough. That's plenty of time, I guess, for people to forget what an empty-souled shitheel Ryan is. Jesus God, I'm so fucking sick of the American electorate's short attention span.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Yes.

Take the lessons of Iraq, apply them to Syria. That's the only way. We don't have all the answers, we can only do what's right.

Isn't the lesson of Iraq not to do regime change?  It certainly is for me. 

"What's right" is a ridiculous standard.  Everyone is the hero of their own story.  Genghis Khan murdered entire cities to show his right to conquer, and I've no doubt he thought it was right to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Fair enough. That's plenty of time, I guess, for people to forget what an empty-souled shitheel Ryan is. Jesus God, I'm so fucking sick of the American electorate's short attention span.

Yep.  And yet I'd still prefer President Ryan to President Trump.  The list of Republican officeholders I wouldn't prefer over our current President is quite short.  John Bolton is the only one that really comes to mind.  Sessions, Cruz, Ryan, Pruitt, McConnell are all horrible in their own way, but they lack the complete package of disaster that Trump is providing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Yes.

Take the lessons of Iraq, apply them to Syria. That's the only way. We don't have all the answers, we can only do what's right.

What are the lessons from Iraq, and how do we avoid those mistakes again ?  

 

And on the domestic front, what's this party realignment you speak of?  Why would it happen and who's going where?

Edited by larrytheimp
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

And on the domestic front, what's this party realignment you speak of?  Why would it happen and who's going where?

From the looks of it, the Democratic party loses the white working class even further, while the Republicans lose educated suburban whites and pro-trade business types.  That shift was happening in 2016 and looks to be continuing. 

The question is whether that shift can lead to a sustainable party.  All political parties contain contradictions, but sometimes they are too stark to manage.  The Republicans are facing demographic problems staying relevant, although if they improve their standing with the white working class they could have a hammerlock on the Senate for decades.  The Democrats have more contradictions, since a party made up of liberals, minorities, and college educated suburban/urban whites will have trouble maintaining a cohesive platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Isn't the lesson of Iraq not to do regime change?  It certainly is for me. 

"What's right" is a ridiculous standard.  Everyone is the hero of their own story.  Genghis Khan murdered entire cities to show his right to conquer, and I've no doubt he thought it was right to do so. 

If you can't see intervention to stop mass slaughter of innocents as 'right' then I'm not the type of medical professional you need to be talking to.

Regarding Iraq, the entire reason for going there was corrupt from the start. I would posit instead that when you do a regime change, actually give a fuck about helping the people.

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

And on the domestic front, what's this party realignment you speak of?  Why would it happen and who's going where?

R's can no longer be the party of law and order, so that's now a Democrat issue as R's shift to focusing on merely preserving the right to murder minorities for cops .

R's can no longer be the party of fiscal responsibility.

R's can no longer be the party of moral values.

R's can no longer be the party of liberal trade.

R's can no longer be the party of limited government.

R's can no longer be the party of really anything except Trump and God.

And since God is starting to have approval ratings that match Trump's in this country (a little hyperbole, calm the fuck down) they're really just the party of Trump.

 

And Trump ain't gonna last long. So in 2020 we will see a splinter faction of R's that run on these more 'traditional R' values, but they'll be called cucks by the Trumps. Then Trump will lose because Dems (I know I'm being generous by assuming any level of skillful maneuvering by D's but let me have at least 5% optimism here) are going to sweep in moral values, fiscal responsibility, rule of law, and can actually take a stab at being the party of limited government too depending on where this border shit goes.

 

So whatever is left of the party after the rotten structure finally falls in on itself is going to need to find new tent pole issues for their platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Mass murderers cannot be permitted to inflict their madness on innocents.

I mean Saudi Arabia is bombing civilians right now should we lob some missiles at them? And remember Assad may be a brutal dictator but if he falls there will be a genocide. Those rebels he gassed have called for the extermination of Shia and Alawites so unless you want to invade Syria lobbing missiles at the man standing in the way of the murder of the Alawites and Christians is not a good strategy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's never a good idea to predict a party realignment.  There has never been a time in my adult life when there wasn't significant chatter of an eminent realignment.  Just the definition of the term is incredibly elusive both conceptually and operationally.  Coalition shifts are fluid and constant, it's most useful to just focus on identifying and describing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I mean Saudi Arabia is bombing civilians right now should we lob some missiles at them? And remember Assad may be a brutal dictator but if he falls there will be a genocide. Those rebels he gassed have called for the extermination of Shia and Alawites so unless you want to invade Syria lobbing missiles at the man standing in the way of the murder of the Alawites and Christians is not a good strategy.  

Yes.

I think we should start in the Americas and sweep every Tyrant out of the hemisphere, then move over to Europe/Africa and do the same thing going East until you're back in the Americas.

But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve got some insider baseball stuff on Ryan (a good friend was a longtime aide of his).

First, do not expect him to do anything of substance to counter Trump. His former staffers think he’s spineless AF and largely hate him.

Second, he will resign before he seriously challenges Trump. Furthermore, some of his former staffers think he will resign regardless.

Third, at this point, he has no future political ambitions, especially if the Republican party is Trump’s party for the foreseeable future. He’s cashing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Anyway, Trump went on a Mueller-based twitter rant this morning again:

Probably the most salient point here being a repeat of his admission from January that he obstructed justice but it doesn't count because it was just "fighting back".

Despite, you know, that being basically one of if not the most obvious way he, as President, would obstruct justice.

100% agree. That also leaped out at me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

He's a stupid old man with a little bit of mental degeneration.

It's not complicated. You can throw in all the personality issues you want, and they're what makes him actually dangerous, but we can stop vagfooting around at this point.

It's not uncommon at all to lose a bit of that mental sharpness as you get older. With most politicians it's harder to detect because they were smart enough at the start so that they're regressing towards the mean rather than towards fifth grade like Donald, and while a lot of politicians have hugely narcissistic personalities they also have enough political wherewithal to know not to say certain things that are... insane.

Again, this is why it’s important to differentiate an everyday narcissist from someone who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. F the Goldwater Rule, Trump has the latter.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So until Monday, when they announced the end of the arrangement, Michael Cohen had a "strategic partnership" with, and an office in, fancy huge law firm Squire Patton Boggs (I'm sure the end of the partnership was as pre-planned as Laura Ingraham's vacation). I've also heard that this firm represented Cambridge Analytica and that their lobbying arm does work for Gazprom, the Russian natural gas company that Putin treats like a slush fund. 

I know these big firms have many many clients, but that is a hell of a coincidence.

Edited by DanteGabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Yes.

I think we should start in the Americas and sweep every Tyrant out of the hemisphere, then move over to Europe/Africa and do the same thing going East until you're back in the Americas.

But that's just me.

It is just you.  That policy will lead to WWIII between the US and a China/Russia alliance.  There'll be plenty of mass murder go around once that happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×