Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Let's Get Kraken

U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

Recommended Posts

It used to be fun to come up with crazy conspiracy theories, but now every time I think of one, I almost immediately say "but it's not really all that crazy considering who is in charge."

In today's edition I was originally wanted to see if there was anything being told to soldiers who felt certain commands might result in unlawful orders (specifically violations of the Posse Comitatus Act), but I got a bit sidetracked.

While reading one article, I came across a reference to the border patrol union head saying the deployment of the National Guard was a colossal waste of time and money.  I did find this article, which is likely the source: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/05/25/border-patrol-union-head-calls-national-guard-deployment-a-colossal-waste-of-time/

Seems the biggest complaint is the duplication of efforts instead of being additional support. According to the article, previously the National Guard were allowed to do more, like serve as lookouts.

So 2,000 NG are a waste of time and money so let’s add 5,000+ more, this time active duty soldiers (or maybe 10-15,000 more)?

One has to ask why????

While reading an article about how the troops were preparing and instructions they were being given, lights suddenly started flashing and I heard the “Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner, folks” sound in my head.

 

Quote

From the papers, the military is preparing to defend against an “estimated 200 unregulated armed militia members currently operating along the [Southwest Border]. Reported Incidents of unregulated militias stealing National Guard equipment during deployments. They operate under the guise of citizen patrols supporting [Customs and Border Patrol] primarily between [Points of Entry].”

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/31/deployed-border-troops-are-preparing-for-militias-stealing-their-gear-protester-violence-documents-show/?utm_source=clavis

I found it weird that this would be one of the main things soldiers are being warned about, so I went looking for stories about NG working at the border having their equipment stolen by suspected militia and couldn’t find any.

This has just fueled my (supposedly) fun conspiracy theory.

Other than political posturing, the main reason to send so many members of the military to the border is to help equip these (and maybe other) militia groups with actual military grade weaponry.

*takes bow and accepts the tin foil hat award* -from my acceptance speech “No takebacks if this comes true”  :P

Edited by Lany Freelove Cassandra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Miller’s Biggest Gamble Yet

Donald Trump’s racist ad is a shocking provocation. It’s also rooted in a strategy elevated by one of his most controversial senior advisers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/stephen-miller-trump-closing-message/574594/

Quote

 

But it’s still worth understanding how Miller lays out his political calculus. While he may be a committed ideologue, he works for and with a lot of Republicans who are guided more by opportunism than by ironclad conviction when it comes to immigration. The long-term relevance of his sharply nativist politics within the GOP will depend in part on the Miller faction’s ability to keep selling it as a winning strategy (even in the face of evidence to the contrary).

Back when we spoke in March, Miller’s approach was to couch his restrictionist immigration views in a grander, gauzier vision of American nationalism—an idea he believes is destined to win out in the 21st century.

 

 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my favorite stat so far is that if 15000 US troops go to the border to defend it, that will be three TIMES how many troops we have in Iraq to fight ISIS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think my favorite stat so far is that if 15000 US troops go to the border to defend it, that will be three TIMES how many troops we have in Iraq to fight ISIS. 

I am pretty sure Republicans think ISIS is among the caravan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since russia has zero problems paying russian 'PMCs' to die on USA guns it wouldn't surprise me they paid actual gangs to strap on some homemade bombs to drugged out victims and pay people to drive them to american checkpoints or something.

I hope i'm wrong and it's all theater but remember that a sure and tried way that criminals and fascists use to get 'normal' people to buy into their criminality is to drag you into a atrocity (for instance the few ICE that were there for the human trafficking before the Cheeto). This might just be more of the effort to radicalize the army.

Edited by Serious Callers Only

Share this post


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

Among my current reads is Steve Kornacki's The Red and the Blue: The 1990's and the Birth of Political Tribalism (2018), i.e. the politics of attack confrontation of everything all the time. Why yes, this was the strategy devised by the ravenous for political power, boundlessly ambitious, entirely without shame, Newt Gingrich. 

Everyone else in the story too, generally speaking, are also ravenous for political power, endlessly ambitious as Gingrich, but not many were as shameless about doing whatever he wanted to win, even committing social and moral crimes, as he -- even while prosecuting others for the very things he did.  Even Cheney preferred to perform his nefariousity behind the scenes, though he was almost numero uno supporter of the Gingrich Way.  And so, we see the Gingrich Way sway, seduce and convince all the Rethugs very, very quickly.  And now, here we are.

It's equally profoundly depressing to see how feckless and hapless the Dems have been in their complacent comfort of nearly 40 years dominance of Congress.  They still haven't dug themselves out of that hole.  They still refuse to even see the hole, partly because, of course, they just don't want to embrace the long-time fact that they are indeed the party of diverse USA.  They still want to be the party of white men like they were in the days of LBJ -- the good guys they were, admired and respected, due to voting rights acts and other civil liberties, that didn't impinge on their privilege at all, as they were smart enough to understand, whilst the white republican guys felt with fiber of the being that every expansion of civil liberties to women and other others was a lessening of each one's own personal male white guy potency.  The story of Jesse Jackson's 1988 campaign and how it terrified the livin' shyte out of the DNC is also disheartening but if the old white party people studied it right now, they should learn some big lessons and maybe dig the Dem party out of its hole.

 

 

Honestly I'd feel a lot better if he was just some troll who gets paid, as opposed to someone who actually exists and is that foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

It used to be fun to come up with crazy conspiracy theories, but now every time I think of one, I almost immediately say "but it's not really all that crazy considering who is in charge."

In today's edition I was originally wanted to see if there was anything being told to soldiers who felt certain commands might result in unlawful orders (specifically violations of the Posse Comitatus Act), but I got a bit sidetracked.

While reading one article, I came across a reference to the border patrol union head saying the deployment of the National Guard was a colossal waste of time and money.  I did find this article, which is likely the source: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/05/25/border-patrol-union-head-calls-national-guard-deployment-a-colossal-waste-of-time/

Seems the biggest complaint is the duplication of efforts instead of being additional support. According to the article, previously the National Guard were allowed to do more, like serve as lookouts.

So 2,000 NG are a waste of time and money so let’s add 5,000+ more, this time active duty soldiers (or maybe 10-15,000 more)?

One has to ask why????

While reading an article about how the troops were preparing and instructions they were being given, lights suddenly started flashing and I heard the “Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner, folks” sound in my head.

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/31/deployed-border-troops-are-preparing-for-militias-stealing-their-gear-protester-violence-documents-show/?utm_source=clavis

I found it weird that this would be one of the main things soldiers are being warned about, so I went looking for stories about NG working at the border having their equipment stolen by suspected militia and couldn’t find any.

This has just fueled my (supposedly) fun conspiracy theory.

Other than political posturing, the main reason to send so many members of the military to the border is to help equip these (and maybe other) militia groups with actual military grade weaponry.

*takes bow and accepts the tin foil hat award* -from my acceptance speech “No takebacks if this comes true”  :P

Sounds legit. Or the reason could be reduced down to one of Trump's favorite words: wall.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wall-people-trump-defends-military-presence-border/story?id=58878290

Quote

"We have to have a wall of people," Trump said, shortly after it was announced that he plans to send 10,000 to 15,000 troops to the border.

Red rover, red rover, I dare you cross over. (OK, kinda took that from Trevor Noah)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Sounds legit. Or the reason could be reduced down to one of Trump's favorite words: wall.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wall-people-trump-defends-military-presence-border/story?id=58878290

Red rover, red rover, I dare you cross over. (OK, kinda took that from Trevor Noah)

20,000 border patrol agents, 15,000 troops, 1954 miles, that's nearly 18 people per mile, but they need to work shifts, so 6 people per mile (9 with 12 hr shifts)

What a fucking waste. I hate what this country has become. Women and Children are an invasion force. I used to be proud of my service, now I'm not even proud to admit I'm an American

 

(ftr, I know they won't all be standing there, lined up watching the border, but it is the visual that comes to mind)

Edited by Lany Freelove Cassandra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ooooh, I'm familiar with this perspective, but incredibly enough this is the first time I've seen it coherently articulated.
I could literally write a book to explain why this perspective is fallacious, but this is the internet so I'll try to be concise.

According to this perspective, human rights are a rather new development (historically speaking) that come from a form of naive generosity in times of peace and abundance. I would say this is the first fallacy. Despite the novelty of the current iteration, human rights are as old as civilization. I don't believe they came from naivety either, but from pragmatic necessity in some cases and fear of role reversal in others. In fact the reason human rights are so developed today is precisely because the human potential for destruction grew exponentially in the last few centuries, culminating with a novel form of systematic genocide and the creation of nuclear weapons. In a nutshell, human rights are safeguards against abuses of power, and their primary goal in the modern era is to protect us all against the worst humanity is capable of, which is, simply put, unlimited killing and destruction.
And this is where the second fallacy comes in. Within this perspective is the idea that you can somehow discard human rights in some areas (immigration) and keep at least some form of them in others (constitutional framework, geopolitics). It doesn't work this way. To be technical, violence toward an out-group is always correlated to violence within an in-group. Or, to put it differently, the lack of respect for the others' humanity will always result in a lack of respect for your own's humanity. This was, after all, the great lesson that the 20th century had to offer, and yet which tends to be forgotten: that populations moving to illiberal regimes often ended up being victims of these regimes themselves. Yet another way to put it is that extreme forms of nationalisms always end up infringing on the rights of the nationals themselves.
So you have two serious consequences of discarding respect for human rights. In the realm of geopolitics, denying others their humanity will mechanically lead to increased tensions and potential conflicts ; in a world bristling with nuclear weapons this is extremely dangerous. And in the realm of domestic politics, rejecting others from the national community always leads to some form of slippery slope. And unlike a popular argument, I'll say it doesn't necessarily result in genocide, but there are many other negative consequences through the loss of constitutional and institutional norms.
Funnily enough you have added a third fallacy to the mix with this talk of "strong & weak." Of course, human rights are meant to restrict the strong and protect the weak. It takes quite an effort to somehow claim that refugees and immigrants are not weak (violent criminals.., ) and/or that they are used by strong elites (billionaire Jews) for nefarious purposes (??) ... all in order to somehow cast your ideas in the best possible light. That's the result of modern right-wing conspirationism, which hurts the overall point you're trying to make. Get off Breitbart, man. No one is actually a victim of immigration, whatever they tell you.

Well, I failed to be concise. To sum up, to believe that you can deprive others of human rights while keeping yours is a delusion.

And talking of failure, how on earth can anyone talk of human rights as an ideology, or even worse a failed one? Holy fucking shit man, unless you come from an aristocratic and/or oldish super-wealthy family, human rights are the reason you have something that can be called a life. It is sad, and terrible, and infuriating, that so many conservatives are dumb enough to think there is a difference between human rights and individual liberties. It seems that to people like you human rights are what applies to others and individual liberties are what applies to you. There has to be a special place in hell for people with such a cognitive dissonance that they will defend things like freedom of speech and due process in one breath and then deny others not just the possibility but the very legitimacy of seeking a better life for themselves in the next. Or, since this was just being discussed, who think corporations should see their rights expanded (because the market, yeah!) and are then outraged by the consequences this has.

Anyway, I hope you realize just how terrible the second future/option you described is. Do away with human rights for some people, and one way or the other you'll quickly find yourself stripped of yours. A future in which the West would be dominated by illiberal ultra-nationalist regimes is also one is which you can kiss due process and freedom of speech goodbye (at least), while living in constant fear of war with Eastasia.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying open borders is the holy grail. What I'm saying is that you want to be very careful about the why and the how you close them. De-humanizing others, spitting on human rights... That's the highway to a seriously grimdark future. It's mind-boggling that so many people are so afraid of others that they are so willing to turn their back on progress. It's like "Yeah, Nazi Germany was bad, but at least white people could be proud of having their nation y'know?" You really think your hands are "tied by a failed ideology" ? I believe you may find that this "failed ideology" protects you from far more than you imagine. And if you think I'm fear-mongering, I believe it is easy to travel to countries with little respect for human rights. Go right ahead and give it a try, yeah?
 

This is pure mince. I would not give up the day job to pen that tome.

This Kitty has a broken laptop so is unable to respond properly but will do so in the fullness of time. For now, how do you explain how the USA preserved the rights of its citizens following the immigration stop of the 1920s and how Japan manages to be a liberal democracy today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

 

 

Quote

Someone in the back of the room shouted, “He can’t even open an e-trade account,” a reference to the troubles Wohl ran into in his brief financial trading career.

These magnificent numpties couldn't even agree on how to spell the name of their alleged accuser. I wish I could be at that "press conference" just to soak it in.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/burkman-wohl-presser-mueller

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

Honestly I'd feel a lot better if he was just some troll who gets paid, as opposed to someone who actually exists and is that foul.

O they are that foul.  They have no moral compass of any kind. And if they thought the geist (and money! and winning!) were on our side of the spectrum, they'd be spewing here too -- though that's pretty hard to pull off when one intrinsically hates everybody and everything as the foundation of their frog stroke through the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, S John said:

I'm a lot closer to being a free speech absolutist than you are.  I definitely lean heavily towards the bolded approach, but without getting into all that, I don't think any private entity is obligated under the 1A to host speech they don't like for any reason.   

To require private entities to host speech they disagree with is itself a violation of freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SweetPea said:

...

If you have hate speech laws, you don't have free speech. Hate speech is subjective, and will always be exploited to censor unwanted opinions. Have you seen what happened in Austria a week ago? The fucking European Court of Human Rights ruled that criticizing Prophet Muhammad is not covered by free speech. Lol! The same people who were shitting on religion (especially Christianity) a decade ago now want to make insulting the "Holy Prophet" of Islam illegal. A woman was convicted and fined for doing so. Nice world you're building there, really makes me want to vote for leftists!

...

Nope. No such ruling, they simply said that Austrian laws had been applied correctly. And it should be no surprise to anyone we don't do free speech absolutism here in Europe, we just do consequences-included speech and free press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Well like a friend just said, a week or so and we find out how fucked we really are.

Sadly we probably already are. I said just a few days ago that I wondered if/when Trump would suggest or accuse Democrats of aiding in the murder of U.S. citizens. Well he did just last night. Even if we retake the House in 2018 and the White House in 2020, I have no idea how you undo all the damage he’s done to our institutions and country writ large. Short of some catastrophe that final wakes Republicans up, I see no reason for anything to change in the post-Trump presidency era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Sadly we probably already are. I said just a few days ago that I wondered if/when Trump would suggest or accuse Democrats of aiding in the murder of U.S. citizens. Well he did just last night. Even if we retake the House in 2018 and the White House in 2020, I have no idea how you undo all the damage he’s done to our institutions and country writ large. Short of some catastrophe that final wakes Republicans up, I see no reason for anything to change in the post-Trump presidency era.

Oh I agree we are fucked. Just not sure by how much yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted this in the international news thread, but it should go here too because our politicians really need to start doing something or the planet, and thus us, are goners:

Quote

On a much more depressing note, a scientific study was recently released claiming that upwards of 60% of the Earth's insects have disappeared over the last few decades. Here is the summary.

Also, give this podcast a listen. It's depressing as hell. The planet is deteriorating before our eyes.

I strongly suggest that you check out the podcast if nothing else. It's about 50 minutes long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah, we reach the next sadly predictable stage of the caravan imbroglio:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/01/trump-immigration-953569

Quote

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the U.S. military would treat any rocks or stones being thrown by asylum-seeking migrants slowly heading to the U.S.-Mexico border as firearms.

"I will tell you, anybody throwing stones, rocks, like they did to Mexico and the Mexican military, Mexican police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico, we will consider that a firearm," Trump said during an announcement that his administration next week would release a "comprehensive" executive action on immigration that will include changes to the asylum-seeking process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh I agree we are fucked. Just not sure by how much yet.

You mean on the spectrum of dead just how dead are we?  Dead is just -- dead.

 

Share this post


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

×