impeachment stupidity

[Bo Deadly]

President Trump has promised to drain the swamp and swamp dwellers from both parties, all over DC are pushing back, as they see their old comfortable and profitable ways being upset.

I'm sorry, I think I just broke my neck reading this and I need clarity.

Are you saying that you believe Rump is in fact draining the swamp? Meaning you think he is sincerely trying to remove people from government who are corrupt, self-dealing and wasteful?

 

[dogears]

It's safe to assume that in the greatest of power games, the one at the top is likely to exhibit the most psychopathy.  If it were otherwise, they would not be at the top.

Agree completely. Probably more high-functioning sociopaths per capita in politics than anywhere else, except possibly CEO ranks.

We should probably amend it to not simply psychopathy but effective psycopathy - which is a combination of raw intellect, ambition, cunning, charisma, etc. Just being a psychopath probably isn't a very good predictor of success.

 

[Bo Deadly]

I imagine you never served in the military or this probably would be second nature to you. You salute the rank, not the person.

Except in the military or in any other position other than President, he would have been removed long ago for conduct unbecoming or worse.

Patriotism is an emotion and not something that should guide your decisions or use like a tool to shield yourself. It kinda irks me when Rump hugs the flag actually.

 

[dogears]

Except in the military or in any other position other than President, he would have been removed long ago for conduct unbecoming or worse.

Patriotism is an emotion and not something that should guide your decisions or use like a tool to shield yourself. It kinda irks me when Rump hugs the flag actually.

This is a non sequitur and an unprovable assertion besides. The fact, he has not been removed from office, so he is the President of the United States, and the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces. Your opinion of him as a person, his worthiness, whatever, is not relevant.  Incivility breeds incivility, disrespect breeds disrespect.  If he calls you a playground name and you respond by calling him Rump, who wins? Hint: its not you.

 

[Matador]

Again. Stupid people simply do not become President of the United States. This is a conclusion anyone can arrive to over a beer or a scotch in a few minutes of quiet reflection.

Trump won by a 70k vote margin in three states.  With margins like those it's entirely feasible to get an idiot in office (perhaps idiot isn't the best term...perhaps 'someone devoid of intellectual curiosity' is better).  Voter apathy was likely more responsible for his win than his 'raw intellect'.

Let's not forget that the Obama administration is basically responsible for the growth of ISIS in the first place.

Got it: go team Red!

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm sorry, I think I just broke my neck reading this and I need clarity.

Are you saying that you believe Rump is in fact draining the swamp? Meaning you think he is sincerely trying to remove people from government who are corrupt, self-dealing and wasteful?

There is a DOJ inspector General investigation proceeding looking into the basis of the Mueller investigation. There is also an investigation into the funny business around the fisa court approvals. This is why the opposition would love Bill Barr (attorney general ) to recuse himself, like Jeff Sessions did.

Of course opinions vary but Comey and few of his FBI peeps are already gone, I expect more will follow.

The swamp is a target rich environment for deep state miscreants.

JR

PS: A broken neck is a serious injury, I will ASSume you are just stuck in hyperbolic mode.

 

[dogears]

Trump won by a 70k vote margin in three states.  With margins like those it's entirely feasible to get an idiot in office (perhaps idiot isn't the best term...perhaps 'someone devoid of intellectual curiosity' is better).  Voter apathy was likely more responsible for his win than his 'raw intellect'.
Got it: go team Red!

There's no need to add additional encumbrances to my statement. It doesn't matter if he wins by one vote or one thousand. I'll gladly stand by my position: stupid people do not become presidents of the United States. Or heads of any other major democratic nations, for that matter - I'm perfectly willing to extend this charity to other nations.

US presidential elections aren't won in a day, and whether you like the means and methods or not he dispatched every opponent in that election cycle. Come on. Don't let your dislike for him get in the way of reason. He won. There are many people who want to do what he did and can not. Many rich men - men richer than him! - have run for president and lost. Laozi says there is no misfortune worse than underestimating the enemy; underestimating the enemy, you risk losing your treasure. I imagine Hillary Clinton has learned this in spades.

He may be devoid of intellectual curiosity, he may not. I don't know - but note we've now moved the goal posts. Maybe he's not stupid after all?

//////

If you think I wear a red or blue shirt you haven't been listening. Try to decouple yourself from this futile binary mentality. Pointing out that our current action with regard to a specific Kurdish militia is a choice made in the context of an inherited situation isn't an endorsement or a critique of either administration. Ignoring that situation and how we arrived there is selection bias at best, mostly likely simply the result of ignorance, and dishonest partisanship at worst.

I don't think it is that difficult to trace a causal chain to the growth of ISIS that goes through the decisions of the Obama administration's foreign policy pivot with respect to Iran in the ME region. That is one of the exceptions in the chain of foreign policy constants. I'm not casting judgment on it - I'm just pointing out what are essentially facts. You can make whatever judgment on them you like.

Geopolitical imperatives do not change from administration to administration. That's why US foreign policy more or less was static from the Bush administration through the Obama administration,  and is more or less the same today, with limited but noteworthy exceptions. We are still focused on the same regions and activities we were before because we still have the same geopolitical imperatives driving those decisions. Four or eight years doesn't change the geopolitical "hand" dealt to a country or a president.

The vast majority of people don't care at all about the Kurd's plight, and they haven't for the past 100 years. The Kurds have been screwed over and over again by literally every American administration since Reagan and by the European powers before that. And now suddenly because it is politically expedient we're going to feign outrage? No one cared about the civil war in Syria until fairly recently, and plenty of Western powers have a hand in it because it is part of a larger geopolitical energy struggle between Europe and Russia.

Spare me the hysterics. You don't like President Trump - we get it. There's no need to go through the theatrics to justify it.

 

[Matador]

There is a DOJ inspector General investigation proceeding looking into the basis of the Mueller investigation. There is also an investigation into the funny business around the fisa court approvals. This is why the opposition would love Bill Barr (attorney general ) to recuse himself, like Jeff Sessions did.

The hardest part I have with this is why you believe these are 'good/correct/real/valid' investigations, however any other anti-Trump investigations are:

an orchestrated opposition political strategy...trying to control the news cycle with a series of negative news leaks (death by a thousand cuts ).

If there is real meat to this story, then what is it?  What is the evidence of wrongdoing, and who is doing the investigating?

 

[Matador]

I can't square these two statements:

I don't think it is that difficult to trace a causal chain to the growth of ISIS that goes through the decisions of the Obama administration's foreign policy pivot with respect to Iran in the ME region.

then

Geopolitical imperatives do not change from administration to administration. That's why US foreign policy more or less was static from the Bush administration through the Obama administration,  and is more or less the same today, with limited but noteworthy exceptions.

So you are saying the policy was static since the late 90's, then Obama's singular 'pivot wrt. Iran' was solely responsible for the growth of ISIS?

How do you think Saddam Hussien would have dealt with Shia-backed ISIS militants in Iraq?

 

[dogears]

I can't square these two statements:
then
So you are saying the policy was static since the late 90's, then Obama's singular 'pivot wrt. Iran' was solely responsible for the growth of ISIS?

How do you think Saddam Hussien would have dealt with Shia-backed ISIS militants in Iraq?

I think if you look at the US foreign policy as a whole it is mostly static, with a few minor changes here and there. The Obama administration's softening stance on Iran is an exception. It was a pretty significant departure within the region. The Trump administration initially kept it as a status quo, but has since walked that back strongly. You can look at Mattis' retention as SECDEF and later resignation as evidence for both points.

I don't think it is solely responsible for the growth of ISIS. Nothing in something as complicated as geopolitics is the sole cause of anything.  Energy dependence presents a considerable risk for the European subcontinent. Russia has the means to negatively impact western Europe through the restriction of the supply of natural gas and has demonstrated a willingness to use this lever many times over the years. I believe a combination of a kind of neo-con / progressive "light of democracy" hope combined with a desire to change the balance of power in the ME and western Europe caused us to engage in destabilizing activities in Syria. Read: supply of materiel and training to certain rebel groups and militias. We know for a fact that some of these groups later joined ISIS. The aim here being regime change to allow a friendly government (or junta, or dictator - who cares amiritelol /s) in Syria to extend our control and allow us to build a pipeline from Qatar to Europe.

Our exit from Iraq also created a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to grow (Iraq is a 30 year tragedy or comedy depending on how you look at it, so don't take this as me putting it at the feet of the Obama administration).  This can be seen in the light of a softening toward Iran. Our change in stance in Jordan and KSA also fostered this opportunity.

Syria blocks an easy route for energy transfer by pipeline from the ME to Europe. Therefore Russia opposes it. Assad is supported by Russia; therefore Russia opposed the civil war we encouraged, fostered, whatever you want to call it. Iran is aligned with Russia.

However, there was some blowback (when will we learn? There always is...) and ISIS became a problem for everyone. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and therefore Russia, and us. We actually directly cooperated with Iran's Qud's force to fight ISIS, along with pro-Assad rebels, anti-Assad rebels, and Kurdish factions in both Syria and Iraq, along with the pro-Iranian army in Lebanon (indirect boon for Hezbollah).

Surrogate warfare makes for strange bedfellows, especially when the surrogates on any particular side are not politically, ideologically, ethnically, religiously aligned.

///

ISIS would have never happened in Iraq under a strong government regardless of who was in power. The very presence of what amounts to an invading army is evidence of a weak government. That's why you're starting to see some people call for the US to about-face and support Assad, on the belief that a dictator is the easiest path to controlling nations in the ME. You might say that's why George H.W. Bush was perfectly content to stand by while Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. Easier to handle one crazy person than a whole mess of rival factions. It's ugly, but it's hard to argue with.

 

[JohnRoberts]

wow...  You guys are like kittens chasing refections off a mirror ball. I have to admit enjoying being told about how things would work in the military.  8)

Sorry I am going to tap out because this is more noise than signal. Argue among yourselves.

Check you later (maybe days later).

JR

 

[living sounds]

Appeals to authority fallacy. I don’t care what the “experts” say. Half of the “experts” are the same bad of neocons and misfits that got us in this mess in the first place. Why should we listen to them?

You have no clue what you’re talking about, are left copying and pasting experts that you’re frantically googling and can’t even admit it.

///

Popular vote is irrelevant in US presidential elections..

I guarantee you President Bush is better read than you are. I don’t know anything about President Trump’s intellectual curiosity - but I’m also pretty sure you don’t either. I wouldn’t be surprised if both had a higher IQ than either of us. 

//

This conversation has been a delight. Have a good one.

One of the fallacies you are commiting here is called an ad hominem. This is not about me.

I agree about the IQ though, they are both likely to be quite high in general intelligence. But as I wrote above, it is not the only important measure. And maybe not even a good one - the legendary Richard Feynman reportedly had only an IQ of 125.

 

[living sounds]

Yet he's the President of the United States, wealthier than you will ever be, and defeated the shoo-in Democrat.

The funny thing about his wealth is that he received it all from his father in the 80s. And if he had put all that money in a well-managed stock portfolio at that time, he would now be a lot wealthier. He's got at selling lies, and one of those is that he is a genius businessman. He is not.

 

[living sounds]

Agree completely. Probably more high-functioning sociopaths per capita in politics than anywhere else, except possibly CEO ranks.

We should probably amend it to not simply psychopathy but effective psycopathy - which is a combination of raw intellect, ambition, cunning, charisma, etc. Just being a psychopath probably isn't a very good predictor of success.

I agree. But it is a spectrum disorder with multiple dimensions to it. Prevalence of psychopathy was calculated to be very high among most US presidents a few years ago for the aspect of "fearless dominance". But these criteria and how they are applied are not without critics.

I would count lobbyists and of course certain media types to rank high as well. And special ops. And surgeons. And serial killers. ;-)

 

[Gold]

How do you think Saddam Hussien would have dealt with Shia-backed ISIS militants in Iraq?

ISIS is a Sunni movement. Saddam was Sunni. The reason ISIS  rose is because power shifted from the Sunni minority to the Shia majority in Iraq. There would be no ISIS if Saddam was still in power.

 

[hodad]

The stupidity, as I see it (getting back to the impeachment thing), lies with the true believers on the R side, ready to swallow any line of BS that gives Trump cover.  "Invalidating the election":  as I may have said upstream, that's like blaming the cops and the judge for that murder you committed.  Don't abuse the office, and you don't have to worry about impeachment. 

More stupidity:  a Monmouth poll found that roughly 60% of Republicans didn't think Trump mentioned Biden in his call to Zelensky.  Seriously?  Even in the White House's edited readout of the call, Trump mentions Biden.  The White House has already said that Biden was mentioned in the call, and yet 60% of Republicans are too stupid to believe this. 

Then there's the stupidity about things they themselves said, or bought into, that they now are saying the complete opposite of.  Lindsey Graham is of course the perfect example.  He led the charge against Clinton, stating that no conviction for a crime was necessary for impeachment--it's about restoring the dignity of the office.  And now Graham is so far up Trump's bunghole that when Graham burps, Trump farts.  And the same people who bought into his rhetoric in the 90s are buying into his diametrically opposed rhetoric now--and are completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy. 

When facts stare you in the face and you continue to deny them, you are stupid.  The facts are these:  Trump called a foreign leader and used the power of the presidency to attempt to coerce said leader into aiding Trump's re-election campaign.  This is abuse of the office, plain and simple.  Cut and dried.  There may be differing opinions about what to do about this abuse of power, but those are facts.  If you want to go about your day denying denying facts, there's no point in having a discussion.  Go hang out with the flat-earthers or something.  When you can actually connect with reality again (maybe when the drugs wear off?) , then we might be able to engage in meaningful conversation. 

 

 

[dogears]

When facts stare you in the face and you continue to deny them, you are stupid.  The facts are these:  Trump called a foreign leader and used the power of the presidency to attempt to coerce said leader into aiding Trump's re-election campaign.  This is abuse of the office, plain and simple.  Cut and dried.  There may be differing opinions about what to do about this abuse of power, but those are facts.  If you want to go about your day denying denying facts, there's no point in having a discussion.  Go hang out with the flat-earthers or something.  When you can actually connect with reality again (maybe when the drugs wear off?) , then we might be able to engage in meaningful conversation. 

I find the temper tantrum amusing. Are you frequently successful in life by calling the people you disagree with drug-addled morons?

Let's examine your facts. "Trump called a foreign leader and used the power of the presidency to attempt to coerce said leader into aiding Trump's re-election campaign."

Can you expand on this, please? I don't think this is, in fact, true. You can read the transcript here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Can you point to where in this conversation President Trump used the power  of the presidence to attempt to coerce President Zelenskyy into aiding his reelection campaign? After all, these are facts, right? It should be quite plain for all to see. Objective, you know?


//


On second thought, maybe I'm doing this wrong. Let me try your way:
No, YOU'RE stupid and on drugs!

 

[JohnRoberts]

ISIS is a Sunni movement. Saddam was Sunni. The reason ISIS  rose is because power shifted from the Sunni minority to the Shia majority in Iraq. There would be no ISIS if Saddam was still in power.

This is pretty old news, but I argued here at the time against the deep draw down of US troops from Iraq (by President Obama). For the record we still have US troops in Germany. Iraq as a fledgling democracy has a tough road ahead. It is far too soon to declare success (with most of their neighbors hoping or actively working to make them fail. )

Iraq is a Shia majority country that (sunni) Saddam's Ba-ath party (1947) ruled despotically. Besides abusing the Shia majority, he gassed the Kurdish minority in the north, until we stopped him with US air power creating a no fly zone.

ISIS (ISIL) is just another name for a variant extreme fundamental islamic group who desired creating a dominant caliphate in the middle east to rule the muslim world (2014).  Al Qaeda founded by OBL in 1988 had similar grand designs but less success and/or opportunity.

Whabism(?) and Salafism(?) predates them both and points back to Saudi Arabia for it's support. (I apologize for my obvious oversimplification but I do not have the time and energy to explore every aspect completely).

Ultra conservative religion should not be bad, but when practitioners use it as an excuse to kill nonbelievers (infidels) it crosses too many lines to tolerate. Islam is not the first religion to do bad stuff, but needs to hurry up and mature beyond the bad behavior phase. (Caveat this is not all Islam, but a large enough fraction that tolerate/support it, that it will be with us well after I become worm food.)

Radical islam is like a metastasized cancer. You can excise the tumor, and dose with chemo (rule of law), but it often re-emerges in formerly healthy tissues. The would-be caliphate was excised from Iraq/Syria, but ISIS cells are still active around the world.

JR

 

[boji]

Trump called a foreign leader and used the power of the presidency to attempt to coerce said leader into aiding Trump's re-election campaign.  This is abuse of the office, plain and simple.  Cut and dried

Not that any of us would openly support the behavior, but the only unusual thing about Biden/Ukraine is that it is a matter of public record.  Some perspective is needed-- The idea that people in high positions have not been having clandestine meetings to discuss ways to further each other's political and financial goals every day since the beginning of time is a fantasy.

 

[Recording Engineer]

That begs the question of what to do. Turn a blind eye when caught with the excuse that everyone does it? Try that one on the next cop that catches you for simply  speeding. That sounds more anarchy than anything else.