From an actuarial perspective, the GOP is best positioned to ride out a shrinking SCOTUS until they win the presidency. RBG and Breyer are both up there, and Kennedy is the only very old conservative justice. So odds are they get a few years of 4-3 conservative decisions at the very least before they eventually back into the presidency and get to appoint 3 or 4 45 year old conservative idealogues and ruin the court for the rest of our lives.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
McCain is an idiot. Does he think the GOP can refuse to look at any SCOTUS nominees for the next 4 or more likely 8 years?
I suspect he means to try.
It's the new normal now, just as "go to or past the brink of shutdown every time" became the budget rule after 2010.
Want functional government? (not even government that does good stuff, just government that does stuff at all), Vote Democrat, or hope that a black-swan event occurs that overrides demographic advantages and gives the GOP the White House.
what has wikileaks put out that we know was fake? I have only followed them in as much as you can't follow this election without being somewhat aware who they are
Of the recent Clinton-related documents, none.
There's a couple different things going on which can confuse/confound. Part of Wikileaks's past email leaks of the DNC had janky Russian metadata showing that they had been edited, or were created AFTER the leak was closed, but specific fabrication wasn't 100% verified.
That's unsurprising. You are almost certainly going to change the metadata of most documents you interact with. I worked in digital forensics and ediscovery for a while, and in that job you basically get paid to prevent spoliation of evidence / create productions with accurate metadata. By default you are assured you will jack up a bunch of metadata if you goal is not to prevent that from happening.
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
What's the format for this week's debate? Is it the "roundtable" style thing like they did for the VP debate this year or are we just back to first debate podiums and what have you?
What's the format for this week's debate? Is it the "roundtable" style thing like they did for the VP debate this year or are we just back to first debate podiums and what have you?
I don't know how I feel about people preferrimg a massive shadowy cabal successfully conspiring to rig the primaries to get Hillary v Trump to explain things versus believing that a bunch of Republican primary voters wanted him as their standard bearer.
What's the format for this week's debate? Is it the "roundtable" style thing like they did for the VP debate this year or are we just back to first debate podiums and what have you?
and it seems people are very upset with Trump. There are a few supporters here and there, but I was pleasantly surprised with how many people were flat out pointing out his bullshit.
And the first guy on the original tweet from Trump is some guy named Deplorable Francis trying to hock t-shirts. Like, is everyone involved with the Trump campaign trying to grift the populace?
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Alternatively, Dessert Storm is the exception in a long string of military adventures most of which were fuck ups.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
what has wikileaks put out that we know was fake? I have only followed them in as much as you can't follow this election without being somewhat aware who they are
Of the recent Clinton-related documents, none.
Did one of the washington post say that his article's quote had been lifted and placed in an email.
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Alternatively, Dessert Storm is the exception in a long string of military adventures most of which were fuck ups.
Dessert Storm is something you get at a buffet. Desert Storm was the actual conflict.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Sometimes, the statesmanlike thing to do is hold out a sword and tell the opposing party's leading representatives to "please cut a pretty big wound right there, in-between your deranged candidate and his base, and the technically sane portion of your party".
So far most of the WikiLeaks stuff hasn't been faking the content, just radically overselling the importance of it. Staffers doing debate prep = they knew what the questions were! Saying nice things about Bernie = dire plot to manipulate voters opinions! If you believe everything that Hillary does is a dark plot, then it's evidence of that. Otherwise it's just a bunch of actually pretty boring work emails.
what has wikileaks put out that we know was fake? I have only followed them in as much as you can't follow this election without being somewhat aware who they are
Of the recent Clinton-related documents, none.
Did one of the washington post say that his article's quote had been lifted and placed in an email.
No. The e-mail had quoted that article. Sputnik published a modified version of that e-mail that removed the context that it was a quote of an article and attributed the comments to the e-mail's author. That modified version was then picked up and read to a crowd by Trump.
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Alternatively, Dessert Storm is the exception in a long string of military adventures most of which were fuck ups.
Desert Storm succeeded where the later Iraq War failed because it set out to do two things:
1. Kick Iraq out of Kuwait
2. Fuck the hell off leaving Iraq a viable state with a reminder of our capabilities.
The key here is we didn't skip step 2. We didn't topple the Iraqi government or bring democracy to the masses. We did the military equivalent of, "Bad puppy, you do that outside."
Hevach on
+3
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Limbaugh is busy fanning the rigged flames by equating GotV efforts, getting rid of voter ID laws, and yes, early voting as all being examples of an election being rigged. Since everybody knows there are tons of dead Democrats voting in every election thanks to these nefarious tactics.
Very roughly 1 in 20 adults in the US listen to this man.
Here in Iowa I have seen some people annoyed at our Senator Chuck Grassley, head of the Judiciary Committee, over Garland. Mostly in letters in the Register, but they exist.
Of course, 538 has his chances of reelection at like 97% so it hardly matters.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
So I like to say I am surprised, but I'm not. So 4+ years of an increasingly smaller SCOTUS? How short handed can it get before its not valid?
Need 4 to take up a case, but they would presumably speak up before that.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
So I like to say I am surprised, but I'm not. So 4+ years of an increasingly smaller SCOTUS? How short handed can it get before its not valid?
Need 4 to take up a case, but they would presumably speak up before that.
Would they? Like say a liberal justice dies tomorrow? Don't the conservative justices on the court not just take their majority back and start hammering out shitty decisions again?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Alternatively, Dessert Storm is the exception in a long string of military adventures most of which were fuck ups.
Desert Storm succeeded where the later Iraq War failed because it set out to do two things:
1. Kick Iraq out of Kuwait
2. Fuck the hell off leaving Iraq a viable state with a reminder of our capabilities.
The key here is we didn't skip step 2. We didn't topple the Iraqi government or bring democracy to the masses. We did the military equivalent of, "Bad puppy, you do that outside."
The later iraq war was a direct consesquence of "fucking the hell out of there". If we had finished what we started the first time, we could have evaded the second iraqi war, probably 9/11 and quite possibly the formation of Daesh.
What's the format for this week's debate? Is it the "roundtable" style thing like they did for the VP debate this year or are we just back to first debate podiums and what have you?
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Wait, are you saying that anyone who opposed the Iraq war on an ideological ground, had incoherent arguments? Does that include President Obama?
Is it really your opinion that there was no good reason to oppose the war at all, when taking what the State Dept was saying as truth? This is ludicrous. By the same reasoning, Obama should have already have gone to war with Iran, since they were much much further along in their nuclear program than what the State Dept and CIA was saying about Iraq in 2003...
I don't see why it's so hard to believe that Donald Trump has purposely been a terrible person for decades just to give Clinton the presidency.
The Lizardmasons play a very long game.
"Bad men are useful, they keep the other bad men away." I think is the actual idea there, and he may or may not be in on it. But masterful manipulation of a monster, or planned cooped conspiracy... Trump seems to completely lack self awareness. But Trump getting a TV network and insuring 8 plus years of gop implosion isn't a bad deal, even if the optics end with him looking like a monster.
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Noooope. Iraq was a Shi'ite majority that had been governed by a Sunni dictatorship (and an especially dickish one at that) with a large Kurdish population that had been quasi-semi-autonomous for years thanks to the no fly zone. The post invasion shitshow was God damned obvious of anyone with access to Wikipedia.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+4
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Alternatively, Dessert Storm is the exception in a long string of military adventures most of which were fuck ups.
Desert Storm succeeded where the later Iraq War failed because it set out to do two things:
1. Kick Iraq out of Kuwait
2. Fuck the hell off leaving Iraq a viable state with a reminder of our capabilities.
The key here is we didn't skip step 2. We didn't topple the Iraqi government or bring democracy to the masses. We did the military equivalent of, "Bad puppy, you do that outside."
The later iraq war was a direct consesquence of "fucking the hell out of there". If we had finished what we started the first time, we could have evaded the second iraqi war, probably 9/11 and quite possibly the formation of Daesh.
9/11 was a consequence of Desert Storm in the sense that it's what radicalized bin Laden against the US, but that was because of American troops defending Arabia. If we had also performed a regime change in Iraq, bin Laden wouldn't have suddenly been cool with the whole thing.
At least that is what my uncle who was part of desert storm likes to believe.
Could be wrong ofcourse.
Moving on Baghdad was not part of the agreement we had with multiple countries at the time. The mission was to drive Iraqis out of Kuwait, not topple a government. No matter what a bunch of people felt at the time.
Did it contribute to Enduring Freedom ('kinell...)? About as much as Iraq contributed to 9/11.
The second war was so Bush II could prove he was a better man than his father and for the rest of the chicken hawks to prove they could've won in Vietnam if it weren't for all those smelly hippies.
And none of it is especially relevant to the election.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
So I like to say I am surprised, but I'm not. So 4+ years of an increasingly smaller SCOTUS? How short handed can it get before its not valid?
Need 4 to take up a case, but they would presumably speak up before that.
They set their own rules and procedures. If the dropped to four justices they would probably change that rule.
I don't think it breaks down until there are zero justices.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
I can see it now: it has always been the rule for to automatically reject any SCOTUS nominee nominated by a president from an opposing party.
McCain is an idiot. Does he think the GOP can refuse to look at any SCOTUS nominees for the next 4 or more likely 8 years?
If the Senate Judiciary Committee keep moving the goalposts, and keep getting re-elected, they have no reason not to keep moving the fucking goalposts.
In other words, do your research and if there's anybody on the Committee who is up for re-election in your area, vote against them.
Chuck Grassley is one of my state senators and essentially the top kidney stone currently plugging up the gullyworks on the judiciary committee.
He's a giant shitstain and I will be voting for his opponent super duper fucking hard.
+4
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Pierce, national treasure, has written another sober piece for Esquire.
I want her to win just to see what Charlie Pierce writes as a send-off to Obama and a welcome to her. He made me weep in 2012 and I want to weep again.
Why it was almost as though, the day FDR got up in Pittsburgh, he had a public and private position on the critical economic issues of the day. It's almost as though presidents can do things once they get elected that they don't talk about on the campaign trail. It's almost as though being politically adept doesn't necessarily mean being politically duplicitous. It's almost as though not being "transparent" doesn't necessarily mean being corrupt. It's almost as though there is some sort of subtlety required to being president of the United States. It's almost as though, while every child should be able to dream about being president, not everybody can do that job.
I believe there are forces in play that are substantial enough to allay the fears of progressives that HRC will turn into Max Baucus once she takes office. I believe she's smart enough to realize that these forces can work to the advantage of a Democratic president in a different political atmosphere than the one that greeted her husband when he was sworn in. I think she has run a steady campaign in a political year long gone to Bedlam. I think that counts for something more than simple ambition.
I also think that electing the first woman president to follow the two terms of the first African-American president would be an altogether remarkable event and that it's the best argument against the notion that electing HRC would be a demonstration of the status quo.
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Alternatively, Dessert Storm is the exception in a long string of military adventures most of which were fuck ups.
Desert Storm and Kosovo were the two most recent and neither were particularly engaging for us. The US routinely had troops in harms way to various effects since 1992 and none were particularly deceitful or problematic
what has wikileaks put out that we know was fake? I have only followed them in as much as you can't follow this election without being somewhat aware who they are
Of the recent Clinton-related documents, none.
There's a couple different things going on which can confuse/confound. Part of Wikileaks's past email leaks of the DNC had janky Russian metadata showing that they had been edited, or were created AFTER the leak was closed, but specific fabrication wasn't 100% verified.
That's unsurprising. You are almost certainly going to change the metadata of most documents you interact with. I worked in digital forensics and ediscovery for a while, and in that job you basically get paid to prevent spoliation of evidence / create productions with accurate metadata. By default you are assured you will jack up a bunch of metadata if you goal is not to prevent that from happening.
I think it depends on what metadata it is. I know the Windows last modified time persists through file transfers fairly well for instance.
And it does reinforce the Russian connection as well.
You guys shouldn't get your hopes up too high for Wednesday's debate. Not that I don't think Hillary will do well, but she's not going to do well for us. She's going to use the debate to make one last pitch to pry undecideds and weak/moderate Republicans away from Trump. She's not going to play to her base (us). So I expect a lot of her remarks will sound bland to us and her performance won't be fully satisfying to us, simply because we won't be her target audience there.
Hate to tell ya, but her base has almost always been center to center left with light dustings of further left shifts. Not speaking policy so much as to who she attempts to court.
She's been going further left than she ever has in the past with this election. That's new with her. She was not like this when she ran against Obama.
This is worth remembering. Remember, this is one of the (many) senators who proudly and vocally cast their votes "for" in the 2002 Iraq Resolution.
It's not because that was a centrist position. It's because she, and twenty eight other senators from the institutional "left", were dragged (or perhaps just led) rightward--a classic foreign relations situation--by the efforts of the institutional right, the GOP. For a time, she did not substantially question that decision, as far as I can tell--there was certainly no immediate regret anyway. She strongly cheerleaded the disastrous early years of the occupation-backed government. But in the last one to two years, she's reversed her position--this is part of the greatest leftward shift for Sen. Clinton that I've ever seen from her (though I first came to the United States in 2004). I think the Sen. Clinton of 2003 would've been shocked, or at least very surprised, by the Sen. Clinton of today.
I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with a lot of the subtleties of American party politics, but I can understand a rightward shift of the whole spectrum within a time frame. Were it not for the obvious fact that she was a Democratic First Lady, there are a lot of times where I'm a little surprised that, in her career, Sen. Clinton was not a "centrist" Republican. Dismay and regret over having actively supported the invasion, war and occupation is not something the right often expresses (or even rarely).
I don't think so. Clinton isn't adverse to war if the war legitimately serves our interests. In 2003 if you were getting the info from the state department and trusting it then there wasn't much of a reason for opposing the war on anything but strict anti-war grounds*. That is to say that simply because Clinton agreed that force should be authorized does not hang either the intelligence disinformation or the poor planning for the war on her. Nor should those aspects of the war weigh negatively on her vote. After all, if Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction and if the President could be trusted to execute force in a reasonable method to take them out then voting for the war would not look so bad. It should have been a repeat of Gulf War 1, which was not only easy but popular, and had few ill effects. For Clintons political life the Republicans had been ratfuckers, but only insomuch in public and campaigning. Taking that aspect to the government was new.
The problem here is that Bush II really was a game change in terms of foreign policy. While the anti-war left was right about him they were more "broken clock" correct than they were prescient correct. From there the correct measure of a person is whether or not they course corrected; Clinton did. After all the saying does "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Can't get fooled again"**
*which are, let's be honest, not particularly coherent.
**Bush kind of flubbed the execution but the statement really was brilliant.
Noooope. Iraq was a Shi'ite majority that had been governed by a Sunni dictatorship (and an especially dickish one at that) with a large Kurdish population that had been quasi-semi-autonomous for years thanks to the no fly zone. The post invasion shitshow was God damned obvious of anyone with access to Wikipedia.
The AUMF did not imply invasion and overthrow. Iraq was a Shi'ite majority governed by a Sunni dictatorship with a large Kurdisih population that had been quasi-autonomous for years when we invaded in 1992 as well. The difference is that we were competent in 1992. When the AUMF was signed there was no way to know we would not be competent then either.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Boy if those two other trump bombshells actually do exist I wish another one would drop soon.
Posts
Winning the senate this year is real important.
It's the new normal now, just as "go to or past the brink of shutdown every time" became the budget rule after 2010.
Want functional government? (not even government that does good stuff, just government that does stuff at all), Vote Democrat, or hope that a black-swan event occurs that overrides demographic advantages and gives the GOP the White House.
That's unsurprising. You are almost certainly going to change the metadata of most documents you interact with. I worked in digital forensics and ediscovery for a while, and in that job you basically get paid to prevent spoliation of evidence / create productions with accurate metadata. By default you are assured you will jack up a bunch of metadata if you goal is not to prevent that from happening.
It's like the first debate
Probably podiums.
Why else would they be there?
Alternatively, Dessert Storm is the exception in a long string of military adventures most of which were fuck ups.
Did one of the washington post say that his article's quote had been lifted and placed in an email.
Dessert Storm is something you get at a buffet. Desert Storm was the actual conflict.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sometimes, the statesmanlike thing to do is hold out a sword and tell the opposing party's leading representatives to "please cut a pretty big wound right there, in-between your deranged candidate and his base, and the technically sane portion of your party".
you should see how she eats crackers too..
No. The e-mail had quoted that article. Sputnik published a modified version of that e-mail that removed the context that it was a quote of an article and attributed the comments to the e-mail's author. That modified version was then picked up and read to a crowd by Trump.
Desert Storm succeeded where the later Iraq War failed because it set out to do two things:
1. Kick Iraq out of Kuwait
2. Fuck the hell off leaving Iraq a viable state with a reminder of our capabilities.
The key here is we didn't skip step 2. We didn't topple the Iraqi government or bring democracy to the masses. We did the military equivalent of, "Bad puppy, you do that outside."
Very roughly 1 in 20 adults in the US listen to this man.
Of course, 538 has his chances of reelection at like 97% so it hardly matters.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
I, uh...wow. That is some interesting historical information for the current campaign.
---
re: Assange's internet being cut off
Need 4 to take up a case, but they would presumably speak up before that.
Would they? Like say a liberal justice dies tomorrow? Don't the conservative justices on the court not just take their majority back and start hammering out shitty decisions again?
pleasepaypreacher.net
The later iraq war was a direct consesquence of "fucking the hell out of there". If we had finished what we started the first time, we could have evaded the second iraqi war, probably 9/11 and quite possibly the formation of Daesh.
Lecturns.
Wait, are you saying that anyone who opposed the Iraq war on an ideological ground, had incoherent arguments? Does that include President Obama?
Is it really your opinion that there was no good reason to oppose the war at all, when taking what the State Dept was saying as truth? This is ludicrous. By the same reasoning, Obama should have already have gone to war with Iran, since they were much much further along in their nuclear program than what the State Dept and CIA was saying about Iraq in 2003...
"Bad men are useful, they keep the other bad men away." I think is the actual idea there, and he may or may not be in on it. But masterful manipulation of a monster, or planned cooped conspiracy... Trump seems to completely lack self awareness. But Trump getting a TV network and insuring 8 plus years of gop implosion isn't a bad deal, even if the optics end with him looking like a monster.
#mehconspiracy
Could be wrong ofcourse.
Noooope. Iraq was a Shi'ite majority that had been governed by a Sunni dictatorship (and an especially dickish one at that) with a large Kurdish population that had been quasi-semi-autonomous for years thanks to the no fly zone. The post invasion shitshow was God damned obvious of anyone with access to Wikipedia.
The twitter rampage is not abating
haha oh my god for the millionth time I look up to the heavens and beseech whatever power resides there, what even is this
NNID: Hakkekage
9/11 was a consequence of Desert Storm in the sense that it's what radicalized bin Laden against the US, but that was because of American troops defending Arabia. If we had also performed a regime change in Iraq, bin Laden wouldn't have suddenly been cool with the whole thing.
Moving on Baghdad was not part of the agreement we had with multiple countries at the time. The mission was to drive Iraqis out of Kuwait, not topple a government. No matter what a bunch of people felt at the time.
Did it contribute to Enduring Freedom ('kinell...)? About as much as Iraq contributed to 9/11.
The second war was so Bush II could prove he was a better man than his father and for the rest of the chicken hawks to prove they could've won in Vietnam if it weren't for all those smelly hippies.
And none of it is especially relevant to the election.
They set their own rules and procedures. If the dropped to four justices they would probably change that rule.
I don't think it breaks down until there are zero justices.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
You'd still veer off topic, screeching about "Rigged Elections," "emails," and "Benghazi."
Chuck Grassley is one of my state senators and essentially the top kidney stone currently plugging up the gullyworks on the judiciary committee.
He's a giant shitstain and I will be voting for his opponent super duper fucking hard.
I want her to win just to see what Charlie Pierce writes as a send-off to Obama and a welcome to her. He made me weep in 2012 and I want to weep again.
Read it all.
Desert Storm and Kosovo were the two most recent and neither were particularly engaging for us. The US routinely had troops in harms way to various effects since 1992 and none were particularly deceitful or problematic
He's gonna find out soon.
On a related note, I mailed in my CA ballot today.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I think it depends on what metadata it is. I know the Windows last modified time persists through file transfers fairly well for instance.
And it does reinforce the Russian connection as well.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The AUMF did not imply invasion and overthrow. Iraq was a Shi'ite majority governed by a Sunni dictatorship with a large Kurdisih population that had been quasi-autonomous for years when we invaded in 1992 as well. The difference is that we were competent in 1992. When the AUMF was signed there was no way to know we would not be competent then either.