Jump to content
Tywin Manderly

US Politics: Nancy's Knock on the Senate Door

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, guys, I know that it seems like Trump just assassinated a major military leader out of the blue but it was totally deserved because he posted mean memes against Trump

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1213185120032739328?s=20

Oh shoot, posting mean things about Trump on the internet may get you killed? Think some of us are in danger?

...... No, of course not. This is a book forum.  It’s not like the guy actually reads literature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see members of the administration are justifying the attack based on the fact the guy was plotting a coup against the Iraq government.

Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff better keep an eye out for drones coming after them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC has an article with an interesting question: why now?

Quote

What is most surprising is not that Soleimani was in President Trump's sights but quite why the US should strike him now.

A series of low-level rocket attacks against US bases in Iraq were blamed on Tehran. One US civilian contractor was killed. But earlier Iranian operations - against tankers in the Gulf; the shooting down of a US unmanned aerial vehicle; even the major attack against a Saudi oil facility - all went without a direct US response.

As for the rocket attacks against the US bases in Iraq, the Pentagon has already hit back against the pro-Iranian militia believed to be behind them. That prompted a potential assault on the US embassy compound in Baghdad.

One could argue that the attack on an embassy is an act of war and the US looked past the rather transparent proxy games and responded in kind, but it seems rather odd given that nobody was hurt in the embassy attack. It would be interesting to know who that civilian contractor was; Google does a good job of completing the search phrase, but there is no answer in the results -- every article says either "civilian contractor" or "defense contractor", but I rather doubt this was some random plumber or equipment repairman...

Share this post


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

When the hell did the phrase "blood and treasure" become an accepted part of diplomatic vernacular again? 

It’s an expression of support for the Saudis, after having too many of your fav cocktail at the Bar in the Trump hotel. They just stumbled over the word ‘sand’ and used ‘treasure’ instead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Dollars to doughnuts that this is a "Wag the Dog" response to distract from the damning leak of Pentagon emails directly tying Trump to the hold of Ukraine funds.

Link for reference.

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:

Quote

(CNN) In media appearances prior to the 2012 election, Donald Trump repeatedly predicted that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran in order to win re-election.

 Not surprising and...chilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Is it still a thing in schools?

I remember doing it first thing in the morning every school day for years. I think they even made that one Ukrainian exchange student do it.

Still have all the words memorized. 

I think it depends on the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think it depends on the school.

Of course.

Didn’t know if there’d been any changes in the last 10 years pertaining to forcing children to recite it. (Especially of the “Under God” part)

 I’ll do a little research of my own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only "logic" that I can truly muster for this attack is the calculation that the violent response is limited or predicated the US forces remaining in the region. An Iraqi resolution to expel US troops is already in process. The move of a cowardly bully to get one last punch to draw blood before retreating. It's definitely tinfoil hat and risky - but frankly that's what our current foreign policy is based on.

Win for attacking Iran and win for pulling troops out (ultimately - the recent influx of a couple thousand are counter to this. They may just be bodies to tear down behind us as we leave a la Syria).

Share this post


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

Win for attacking Iran and win for pulling troops out (ultimately - the recent influx of a couple thousand are counter to this. They may just be bodies to tear down behind us as we leave a la Syria).

And apparently "win" for the insults to Obama.

The "Red Line" insults have been going off the charts lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Of course.

Didn’t know if there’d been any changes in the last 10 years pertaining to forcing children to recite it. (Especially of the “Under God” part)

 I’ll do a little research of my own. 

It’s a violation of the 1st Amendment to require recitation, but, social approbation is a powerful motivator even if it is not legally required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s a violation of the 1st Amendment to require recitation, but, social approbation is a powerful motivator even if it is not legally required.

Especially when starting in the first and second grades. It's not like 5 and 6 years olds understand what this means.

It's almost like trying to indoctrinate the young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Especially when starting in the first and second grades. It's not like 5 and 6 years olds understand what this means.

It's almost like trying to indoctrinate the young.

There is no “almost” about it.  That’s what is being done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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’.

Edited by James Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

×