Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Well for the last three years you're the ones who haven't accepted the outcome of an election, now you're imagining that Trump was made in your own image.

What Scot said. But also, unlike 2016 a Trump loss would 99.999% certainly be both a NPV and EC loss, which means he's not at all anything like being cast in the same image as the whinging left, who at least could keep crying "But the NPV! the EC system is broken. Hillary would be president if based on NPV." Trump and his supporters on the other hand would rely on solely on conspiracies lacking evidence about voter fraud. So really two very different images for whining about having lost an election.

The NPV argument is pretty much the same as complaints around FPP vs PR in parliamentary / congressional elections. And that has often been a reasonable basis for an electoral system making a change to better reflect the actual will of the people. Running around complaining about fraud without any evidence that it had a material influence, has never lead to reasonable reforms of the electoral system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Disliking the outcome of an election is not the same as not accepting it.  The former is represented by political opposition.  The latter by militant resistance to a normal transfer of power.

The latter is much much worse than the former.

Where does violating your duty to constitution fall If you re a self proclaimed member of the resitance like vindman or unnamed ivy league CIA worked for previous administration guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Here's the dirty secret that will make you feel a bit worse: the average voter of this country hasn't changed a bit. What has changed is the people willing to run and the character of the people in government. We didn't realize how much the actual functioning of the system relied on the politicians and people running the system to have somewhat reasonable morals and somewhat reasonable restraint. 

Well, it's hard to argue with the notion that the American voter has always been pretty stupid.  Hell, that's pretty much the point of The American Voter, the formative work on modern American political behavior.  (Well, its real point is that voters choose based on party ID but are not ideological, or exhibit ideological constraint, but that's much more complicated.)  But OTOH, it's not like the electorate, or at least a portion ot the electorate, perpetuating the worst impulses of elected officials is anything new.

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well, I guess at least he'll be redistributing some of his wealth. Though probably no to the poor and working poor.

Heh, sure I guess there will substantial redistribution based on running a campaign and ad buys, which should "trickle down" to political operatives and broadcast journalists.  And I guess based on their tastes that should buoy....Apple products and trendy hipster restaurants?

5 minutes ago, sologdin said:

not sure why trump voters are so thin-skinned with their unwarranted YOU DIDNT NOT EXCEPT TEH ERECTION.

I think it's pretty clear why Trump supporters would demand we all accept unwarranted erections.

4 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

 

Where does violating your duty to constitution fall If you re a self proclaimed member of the resitance like vindman or unnamed ivy league CIA worked for previous administration guy?

Um, just some basic govt 101 for you, the mandate for NSC staff is explicitly non-partisan (as is CIA's, which was established by the same act, but it's fair to point out CIA's history has hardly been "neutral") and both it and CIA mostly employ careerist bureaucrats that work across administrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

 

Where does violating your duty to constitution fall If you re a self proclaimed member of the resitance like vindman or unnamed ivy league CIA worked for previous administration guy?

I don’t understand the context of your question.  Are you implying Vindman is violating his duty under the Constitution by testifying?  Loyalty to a particular President is very different from loyalty to the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t understand the context of your question.  Are you implying Vindman is violating his duty under the Constitution by testifying?  Loyalty to a particular President is very different from loyalty to the Constitution.

Constitutionally, the legislature makes treaties the executive conducts other diplomacy and LT Col s who coordinate with disgruntled cia guys don't actually get a policy say.  Did Vindman actually have anything to say under cross questioning?  As an inferior in the chain of command you should either support the constitutionally elected executive or resign when all POTUS did was ask to examine corruption by his own government.

Or should corruption by prior admins just be water under the bridge?   Unless you want to argue Hunter Biden is worth 80k a month on his own merits?  

Apparently exploring corruption is a crime from the branch responsible for law enforcement but covering for it is A OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, it's hard to argue with the notion that the American voter has always been pretty stupid.  Hell, that's pretty much the point of The American Voter, the formative work on modern American political behavior.  (Well, its real point is that voters choose based on party ID but are not ideological, or exhibit ideological constraint, but that's much more complicated.)  But OTOH, it's not like the electorate, or at least a portion ot the electorate, perpetuating the worst impulses of elected officials is anything new.

Heh, sure I guess there will substantial redistribution based on running a campaign and ad buys, which should "trickle down" to political operatives and broadcast journalists.  And I guess based on their tastes that should buoy....Apple products and trendy hipster restaurants?

I think it's pretty clear why Trump supporters would demand we all accept unwarranted erections.

Um, just some basic govt 101 for you, the mandate for NSC staff is explicitly non-partisan (as is CIA's, which was established by the same act, but it's fair to point out CIA's history has hardly been "neutral") and both it and CIA mostly employ careerist bureaucrats that work across administrations.

If you think a "mandate" is binding on self identifying elites in power, thats very Kerensky of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mcbigski said:

  As an inferior in the chain of command you should either support the constitutionally elected executive or resign when all POTUS did was ask to examine corruption by his own government.

Or should corruption by prior admins just be water under the bridge?   Unless you want to argue Hunter Biden is worth 80k a month on his own merits?  

said 'corruption by the prior administration' was never anything but a completely discredited conservative delusion. Biden, at the time was at least the third in a string of Obama officials making the same demand over a period of several months,  YOU WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS,  POTUS was manifestly NOT interested in corruption, but solely in digging up 'dirt' on a political opponent - and deliberately did so in an illegal manner.  This is not open for dispute.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Apparently exploring corruption is a crime from the branch responsible for law enforcement but covering for it is A OK.

Targeting a corruption investigation into your own political opponent is a patently corrupt effort. There are many ways to support anti-corruption abroad (Trump has mostly curtailed or ignored these). The faux-earnest "anti-corruption" angle is absurd from on its face. Try another for the grab bag of excuses and whataboutism. This corrupt activity clearly happened and was nearly successful - the cover up has been successful due to the stonewalling by the executive branch (of which there is no defense - no rational excuse other than to cover up malfeasance). This is continuing to go on and will only get worse with an emboldened Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

support the constitutionally elected executive 

he can't be required to lie under oath.  his military oath is to defend the constitution, which requires him to disobey unlawful orders.  he did not swear a loyalty oath to the person of the president; that was by contrast literally something in the third reich. that's what trump and y'all trump voters really want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

If you think a "mandate" is binding on self identifying elites in power, thats very Kerensky of you.

If you classify Alexander Vindman as a "self identifying elite," that's adorably stupid of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Week said:

I don't know anyone personally or read/seen anything mainstream that suggests that anyone doesn't "accept" the last election. It was legally legitimate despite very credible attacks that benefited, but we're not 100% proved to be coordinated, with the winning candidate and current administration. To suggest otherwise is silly.

 

Eta- electoral college arguments aside. The legality is clear though absurd from a point of view.

I not only don't "accept" the 2016 election I did not acknowledge the 2000 or 2004 Presidential elections as legitimate either. Those were occupying regimes, just as this group of criminals are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Or should corruption by prior admins just be water under the bridge?   Unless you want to argue Hunter Biden is worth 80k a month on his own merits?  

It's almost as if the Americans should have some kind of department responsible for looking for things about justice. If only the US had such a department! 

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Apparently exploring corruption is a crime from the branch responsible for law enforcement but covering for it is A OK.

So here's another question, since you're seemingly up on this sort of thing. Why was it testified that no one actually cared about whether or not the investigation occurred, and the only thing that mattered was announcing the investigation? Seems like if you wanted to, ya know, investigate corruption you'd actually focus heavily on investigating it, and you'd really want to keep that as hush-hush as possible so that you don't tip off the people you're investigating, right?

But instead, if you went after that person by very publicly announcing the investigation before actually doing any investigating, wouldn't that jeopardize the investigation? Especially if they're corrupt and are going to do corrupt things like destroy evidence or acid-wash servers? Wouldn't you want to make that a bit more secret?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I not only don't "accept" the 2016 election I did not acknowledge the 2000 or 2004 Presidential elections as legitimate either. Those were occupying regimes, just as this group of criminals are.

What was wrong with the 2004 election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What was wrong with the 2004 election?

If all the Florida votes were counted in 2000 a different person would have had the advantage of incumbency. In other words an illegitimate candidate gained that advantage, started a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and then rode the Fox news bus down patriot lane. Knowing no southern state would vote out an incumbent during war time. Even though it was a "boogey man" war he had no business getting us into.

Ha plenty was wrong with the 04 election and besides after 2000 do you think I was ready to accept whether the results were legitimate?

Anyways it's been 15 years so im a little less pissed, a little, teeeeny bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Constitutionally, the legislature makes treaties the executive conducts other diplomacy and LT Col s who coordinate with disgruntled cia guys don't actually get a policy say.  Did Vindman actually have anything to say under cross questioning?  As an inferior in the chain of command you should either support the constitutionally elected executive or resign when all POTUS did was ask to examine corruption by his own government.

Or should corruption by prior admins just be water under the bridge?   Unless you want to argue Hunter Biden is worth 80k a month on his own merits?  

Apparently exploring corruption is a crime from the branch responsible for law enforcement but covering for it is A OK.

Every time an elected official was caught consorting with a sex worker, the claim 'I was investigating the sordid state of sex work' would ring out. The was a transparent lie then as it is now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Unless you want to argue Hunter Biden is worth 80k a month on his own merits?  

This is what I don't understand - why is this even a talking point? I think the vast majority see Hunter Biden's hiring as crony capitalism. Burisma wanted his name and didn't care about his qualifications. That's a thing that happens all over the world every day - it's corruption that barely even registers because it's so endemic. But it's not illegal on it's face. The Free Market (all hail) has decided that his name is worth a lot. The thing that the Rs are actually trying to push is that Joe leveraged his political power to take the heat off his son for ... something. But that is too complicated (and doesn't hold up under close scrutiny) so they keep hammering that Hunter wasn't qualified for the salary he received. Well, OK, yeah, but that's not the actual point. It is, however, easier for people tor people to understand and rally behind (which is the real point of hammering it.)

TLDR: Hunter Biden's salary is a red herring and shows how weak the actual claim of corruption by the Biden's is. If there was a real case against Joe, they'd be hammering that instead of screaming about Hunter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I can get behind serious investigations into everyone who making a larger salary than their actual qualification is worth. But on that scale, Hunter Biden isn't very high on the list. Is he making 80k a month on his own merits? Of course not, nobody makes 80K a month on their own merits, nobody is that meritorious.

I would love to see all the corrupt fucks getting far more than they are worth via bullshit exploitative methods. It's just weird to see Republicans acting like they give a shit, usually they just call that capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...