US Politics: Nancy's Knock on the Senate Door

[Jace, Extat]

56 minutes ago, Melifeather said:

How is assassinating Iran's equivalent of a Secretary of Defense making America safer? If there was some attack planned, Soleimani's death won't change state plans. Soleimani was a government official - not a leader of a rogue terrorist organization, unless you consider the entire country of Iran as a terrorist organization? Iran is opposed to ISIL and is currently fighting the group in Syria and Iraq, so to label Soleimani as a terrorist in order to justify his death, is ridiculous. 

Iran is very close - months perhaps - to having enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear bomb, and they have the world's oldest drone development program. They have been using military drones against Iraq since the 1980's! They already have drones that can carry and fire missiles, and the capability to use them for biological warfare. The country has promised to strike back at us in retaliation. Attacking our troops is only a matter of  days away, but we should also seriously take their threat to include at attack here at home. Someone up thread jokingly warned Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should watch out for drones, but I think it's Trump that needs to keep his eyes on the sky. And what if they decide the best way to get to Trump is to drop some lethal virus or bacteria on Mar-a-lago or Trump National?

Jesus, way to get me all excited. Listen, we live in a society. You can't just write smut like this without a warning. I'm at work, you pornographer!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

You do not want to know about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. Really hard to get Nazier than that.

Actually now I really do.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Prince of the North said:

Very difficult for me not to agree with you here.  I think the timing is very suspect and I agree with the things I've already read asking "why now?" when there was little to no response to previous Iranian attacks, etc.?  And in the "As usual, there's a tweet for that" dept., there's this:

 Not surprising and...chilling.

I am not willing to go down this rabbit hole quite yet, but there’s a saying I like and it’s especially true of Trump: Every thief thinks everyone else is a thief too. If Trump thought it would be politically advantageous for Obama to do a military strike before an election, there’s no reason to assume he doesn’t think the same of himself.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Actually now I really do.

Okay. I’m your man. 

It was dreamed up and written by a writer for a ~ nationalistic magazine called Youth’s Companion who saw it as a tonic for what ailed America, namely quote...that Gilded Age capitalism, along with “every alien immigrant of inferior race,” eroded traditional values, and that pledging allegiance would ensure “that the distinctive principles of true Americanism will not perish as long as free, public education endures.” 
 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42847962?mag=the-pledge-of-allegiances-creepy-past&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

A colleague of his from the same magazine around the same time was the initiator to both the movement to create Columbus Day and to have flags in every classroom, and they collaborated on a ceremony ensuring both were standardized and really caught on, along with the Bellamy Salute, which was adopted by schools across the country to use during the Pledge and went like this: (can’t post photo? Okay, here is link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

...which was used by American schoolchildren doing the Pledge up until the USA entered WWII, at which point it became an embarrassment that American schoolchildren were doing a nationalistic salute identical to that of the nationalistic salute used by the Nazis, at which point an act of Congress changed it to the hand on heart thing still used to this day. If this reminds you of the whole Star Spangled Banner story, it ought to. Scratch a nationalist...or maybe it’s just another coincidence.

 

edit: personal note...Americans tend to find the image of school kids seemingly doing Nazi salutes to the flag a lot more shocking than non-Americans imo, because for most of the rest of it the whole making-kids-do-daily-pledges-to-a-flag thing seems very creepy and Nazi and the salute is just like ‘yeah, that fits’.

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, Melifeather said:

Someone up thread jokingly warned Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should watch out for drones, but I think it's Trump that needs to keep his eyes on the sky. And what if they decide the best way to get to Trump is to drop some lethal virus or bacteria on Mar-a-lago or Trump National? 

 

This is all obviously terrible and doesn't help America be safer at all, but let's not go overboard here. Iran is run by bastards but they're sane bastards- even now they're going to want the biggest response that'll avoid a full scale war/invasion. Assassinating Trump himself or committing a war crime on American soil would 100% ensure that Iran is no longer standing as it is now within six months- the opposite of what their retaliation is going to be intended to achieve and they know that.

[DMC]

On 1/2/2020 at 12:22 PM, Simon Steele said:

I don't have any data--that is hard to get--but I haven't heard that Warren's supporters went to Buttigeg over Sanders.

Kinda went over this a while back on these threads - see here.  Fact is, Warren and Buttigieg's constituencies overlap a lot more than one would intuitively suspect.  Namely, educated white voters.  And it doesn't take a professional data analyst to see that Warren's loss was Buttigieg's gain when her support dropped in November, whereas Sanders' support has remained incredibly stable throughout the campaign.

On 1/2/2020 at 3:42 PM, larrytheimp said:

It's just the internet, and the far left actually trying to engage the mainstream liberal/Dem base.  We see what inroads Sanders has made and the "run a third party candidate model" hasn't done shit, so now that conversation is happening.  The invective isn't that different than what was directed at Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Clinton again 8 years later, or even Gore in 2000.  It's just everywhere, and the f-bomb is more acceptable socially, and the left is fed up with these establishment goons.

I take your point that the internet has always been the arena for such invective, but as an avid observer in all of those campaigns, I have to disagree that it was this "mainstream."  I think it's distinctly more prominent.  Maybe that's due to the emergence of radical leftist sites like Jacobin, or just because the internet is becoming harsher, or a side effect of having a guy whose only political skill is tweeting invective in the White House, but whatever it is, it annoys me and I think is detrimental to the primary process.

On 1/2/2020 at 5:32 PM, Simon Steele said:

I'd agree. Obama started a movement for change, and he abandoned it when he took office.

Or, maybe, Obama realized that governing is fundamentally different than campaigning.  Something a President Sanders, Warren, or anyone else is also certainly going to learn, one way or another.

8 hours ago, Fez said:

When the hell did the phrase "blood and treasure" become an accepted part of diplomatic vernacular again? I've even seen Democrats use it. Are we fucking 18th century pirates?

I don't see the problem with the term - if anything it emphasizes a pacifistic perspective.  Referring to the costs of war as "blood and treasure" seems to be a good way to highlight the reality of escalation as opposed to "casualties and increased Pentagon spending."  Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the objection to it?  I think I was first exposed to it when reading a lot of the Founders' writings - they liked it a lot.  I really don't get the Nazi comparison - seems to be a conflation with "blood and soil."  

[Guest]

I'm making a prediction now:  Trump has massively fucked up by dramatically escalating tensions with Iran. He could have gone into 2020 trumpeting that he took down ISIS, but now he'll have to deal with an unpredictable escalation of events, which the Iranians damn well know are happening during an election year. 

It also puts the economy, which is the one thing he can point to as an accomplishment, even though it's not really his, at risk. Economic forecasts were already predicting a slowdown in economic growth for this year, and that was before potentially spiking energy prices.

It also puts him seriously at odds with some Republican Senators and the parts of his base who are against more foreign interventionism. I believe there is now a 0% chance that Trump will get a trial-free acquittal in the Senate.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm making a prediction now:  Trump has massively fucked up by dramatically escalating tensions with Iran. He could have gone into 2020 trumpeting that he took down ISIS, but now he'll have to deal with an unpredictable escalation of events, which the Iranians damn well know are happening during an election year. 

It also puts the economy, which is the one thing he can point to as an accomplishment, even though it's not really his, at risk. Economic forecasts were already predicting a slowdown in economic growth for this year, and that was before potentially spiking energy prices.

It also puts him seriously at odds with some Republican Senators and the parts of his base who are against more foreign interventionism. I believe there is now a 0% chance that Trump will get a trial-free acquittal in the Senate.

lol nothing he does matters lol

ETA: his base might be against intervention, but they don't ever actually care. There is still no sign that anything he does puts a dent in his base. And it's not like most of his base aren't super gung ho about shooting brown people in the mideast. 

And as long as his base is fine with it, Republican senators who care far more about angering his base than anything else are also going to be 100% fine with it.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

lol nothing he does matters lol

ETA: his base might be against intervention, but they don't ever actually care. There is still no sign that anything he does puts a dent in his base. And it's not like most of his base aren't super gung ho about shooting brown people in the mideast. 

And as long as his base is fine with it, Republican senators who care far more about angering his base than anything else are also going to be 100% fine with it.

His base will start caring when their gas prices spike up to $3/gallon or they start losing their jobs. There doesn't even need to be an actual recession; just enough have to lose their jobs to break against Trump or stay home in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Which is now much more likely due to escalating regional tensions in the Middle East.

And there's now no way that Moscow Mitch can get 50 Republicans to vote to immediately acquit. There are too many who are either retiring, can be re-elected without Trump support like Romney and Murkowski, or who need to thread the needle in battleground states like Arizona, Colorado and Maine.

Just calling it early.

 

[Jace, Extat]

I've been waiting on these 'calling it early' forecasts to come through since 2015.

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I've been waiting on these 'calling it early' forecasts to come through since 2015.

How has that worked out for you?

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I've been waiting on these 'calling it early' forecasts to come through since 2015.

That's why you're destined to be a spinster!

[Melifeather]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I am not willing to go down this rabbit hole quite yet, but there’s a saying I like and it’s especially true of Trump: Every thief thinks everyone else is a thief too. If Trump thought it would be politically advantageous for Obama to do a military strike before an election, there’s no reason to assume he doesn’t think the same of himself.

I have been saying this exact same thing, re: whatever Trump accuses people of is exactly what he himself is guilty of already doing.

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

This is all obviously terrible and doesn't help America be safer at all, but let's not go overboard here. Iran is run by bastards but they're sane bastards- even now they're going to want the biggest response that'll avoid a full scale war/invasion. Assassinating Trump himself or committing a war crime on American soil would 100% ensure that Iran is no longer standing as it is now within six months- the opposite of what their retaliation is going to be intended to achieve and they know that.

You’re right. My response was an overreaction. Tragically for our troops, they are the more likely target.

39 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm making a prediction now:  Trump has massively fucked up by dramatically escalating tensions with Iran. He could have gone into 2020 trumpeting that he took down ISIS, but now he'll have to deal with an unpredictable escalation of events, which the Iranians damn well know are happening during an election year. 

It also puts the economy, which is the one thing he can point to as an accomplishment, even though it's not really his, at risk. Economic forecasts were already predicting a slowdown in economic growth for this year, and that was before potentially spiking energy prices.

It also puts him seriously at odds with some Republican Senators and the parts of his base who are against more foreign interventionism. I believe there is now a 0% chance that Trump will get a trial-free acquittal in the Senate.

Iran is opposed to and has been fighting ISIL in Syria and Iraq, so how can Trump claim that the assassination of Soleimani was a hit against ISIS? I do think Trump’s motivation was  politically motivated though. 

[karaddin]

10 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I've been waiting on these 'calling it early' forecasts to come through since 2015.

Hey come on now, some of us called "Trump winning the nomination is actually something to be scared about rather than making it a lock for Clinton" since at least early 2016! That's one of these predictions coming through!

[Melifeather]

As dangerous as Trump is, what disturbs me the most is the blind support of his base and the gaslighting Republican Party. Another concern is how damaging FOX propaganda has been. If there’s one thing that would make the biggest impact on our country, it would be to block FOX and Brietbart “news” agencies.

[karaddin]

2 minutes ago, Melifeather said:

As dangerous as Trump is, what disturbs me the most is the blind support of his base and the gaslighting Republican Party. Another concern is how damaging FOX propaganda has been. If there’s one thing that would make the biggest impact on our country, it would be to block FOX and Brietbart “news” agencies.

IMO even if Trump hadn't actually been harmful in office the amount of damage done to the system just by him succeeding the way he succeeded is really significant. He's blown away the restraints of politics norms and that genie won't just go back into the bottle by voting him out.

ETA: @Triskele His base isn't going to see this as being about a few "Hezbollah rockets and cyber attacks" because the propaganda machine is telling them that this guy was the most recent Satan that they'd never heard of. Fox will do everything it can to sell them on it, even as more of their staff his the breaking point where they can't keep this shit up anymore

As stunning as Geraldo calling this out is, the rest of them are in complete propaganda mode and that's what we'll need to expect.

[Altherion]

21 minutes ago, Triskele said:

The gas thing is a great example.

Yes, but like most of Iran's options, it has drawbacks. The main one here is that, unlike in the 1970s, there are now alternatives to gasoline and high prices on the latter would definitely accelerate the adoption of these alternatives. Worse, Iran has no way to raise prices only for the US -- the price would go up everywhere and since many countries are already trying to minimize fossil fuel usage, electric cars would become more competitive on price alone just as more of them are becoming good. Thus, if the price of gasoline dramatically increases, Iran can find itself in a situation where Trump is defeated, his Democrat successor lifts the sanctions... and after some time the price of oil collapses because the global demand just isn't there anymore. It doesn't actually export much beyond oil and gas so this would be a Pyrrhic victory.

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm making a prediction now:  Trump has massively fucked up by dramatically escalating tensions with Iran. He could have gone into 2020 trumpeting that he took down ISIS, but now he'll have to deal with an unpredictable escalation of events, which the Iranians damn well know are happening during an election year. 

It also puts the economy, which is the one thing he can point to as an accomplishment, even though it's not really his, at risk. Economic forecasts were already predicting a slowdown in economic growth for this year, and that was before potentially spiking energy prices.

It also puts him seriously at odds with some Republican Senators and the parts of his base who are against more foreign interventionism. I believe there is now a 0% chance that Trump will get a trial-free acquittal in the Senate.

No.

First, the Republicans always rally around Trump. 

And second, even more importantly, Americans always rally around the flag early on and a huge chunk of them get very very enthusiastic about the chance to see America flex it’s military muscles ‘over there’, regardless of the validity of said war. If it’s war, you’ll see a ton of shouting down opposition as treason, cowardice, and failure to support the troops, we’ll see all kinds of hyperbole about the Iranian regime...not that they’re saints anyways...and I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t a major push to frame Iran as some sort of existential threat to the US.

And people will buy all this cool aid by the gallon and drink it down with jingoistic fervour.

[ThinkerX]

I keep thinking three thoughts about this Iranian fiasco.

 

First, 'mine sweepers for Allah.'  During the Iran/Iraq war Iranian troops would visit schools near the war zone.  'We need mine sweepers,' they'd say.  They'd take the kids to the mine fields and have them walk across, detonating the mines meant for the soldiers.  That level of fanaticism is beyond the comprehension of Trump, everybody on Team Trump, and most american's. 

 

Second, the war game called 'Millennium Challenge 2002,' a prelude to the invasion of Iraq.  It was supposed to illustrate what a cakewalk that war should have been.  The general commanding the 'middle eastern force,' though, had different ideas.  His first act was a mass assault - everything his fictional country could muster - directed against the US fleet in the region.  That act sunk the fleet.  The umpires, motivated by political imbeciles, ordered the fleet 're-floated,' and proceeded with a ground invasion - only to have the defenders resort to the sort of tactics that turned the Iraq invasion into an utter disaster.   Team Trump is utterly incapable of grasping this.

 

Third, with Iraq, the US invaded a country that was deeply divided and crippled by sanctions, and STILL could not attain victory.   Iran is much more cohesive, with a much larger populace, more sophisticated technologically than Iraq.  Further, they have a wide web of fanatical terrorist operatives. 

 

So, what happens when the Iranians successfully sink the US fleets in the region?    

[Jace, Extat]

If the Iranians successfully sink a single major U.S. Naval asset then I'll make another sex tape with Gary Busey.