Middle east.

[Corso]

Instead of getting all haughty, why don't you make an argument for why I'm wrong.

Because your mind is already set, so why bother? I'm not here to change anyone's mind. Perhaps I'm just reminding folks that not everyone thinks like they do. And they shouldn't be scorned for having their own opinions.

Bottom line: Trump is the President, he won the election, and yet many will say "He's not my president"...well, sorry- unless you live outside the country like Colker- like it or not, he is.

Want to change that? Vote him out.

[mzilliox]

Honestly, does anyone actually read what people are replying to, or does everything I post have a filter that says: Maga hat wearing Trump fanatic? - when it's totally not the case. And you ASSUME the list of YOUR priorities " services for Americans, using taxation for schooling instead of war, considering existential crises like nuclear war, climate change, and automation/AI" are everyone's. So how can I agree or disagree that Trump is the best when your list may not align with mine? Or others who voted for Trump?

This what I was agreeing on: the USA's long history of getting involved in other nations.

>>I think you're missing the larger point. We have become one of the "bad guys". We're so wrapped up in thinking that we're correct and that we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries that we can't see it. And from a practical perspective we're being stupid; were squandering our resources and whatever time is left to evolve our infrastructure and expectations to a world that's accelerating into a number of exestintial crises.

We didn't have the right to help knock over Iran's government, for oil, in 1953. We didn't have the right to train South and Central American death squads in our "School of The Americas" at Ft Benning. We didn't have the right to get involved in Viet Nam in what was a civil war related to throwing off the French colonial yoke, ironically after ignoring Ho Chi Minh's earlier entities for assistance in developing a democratic government. The list of our transgressions is depressingly long.<<

Sorry pal, my bad, you said you agreed with this post... so me assuming you agreed with this post was just my bad.
"I think you're missing the larger point. We have become one of the "bad guys". We're so wrapped up in thinking that we're correct and that we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries that we can't see it. And from a practical perspective we're being stupid; were squandering our resources and whatever time is left to evolve our infrastructure and expectations to a world that's accelerating into a number of exestintial crises."

no screaming trump trump trump, quite the opposite actually. i recal you have only said you voted trump because "not hillary", I dont actual recall you having applauded trump or defended much of his policy (maybe the economy, were you the prison reform one?), meaning there's a potential you actually dont like him much. so i assumed you agreed, because you said you agreed. I thought maybe this was one of the areas where you would disagree with the average trump voter, i actually was giving you the benefit of the doubt of trump trump trump there... so if that were the case, i was simply wondering how a trump vote gets us there faster, my mistake. it was that pesky evolve infrastructure and existential crises part that threw me, oops. ???

Funny how the trump bias exists for both sides. i fully admit to a trump bias, no hiding it whatsoever, hes a unique character in the history of my life.

just an honest mistake due to poor communication. you will have to forgive me for not being sympathetic to your position when you dont share it.

and of course ill do my best to vote him out, that goes without saying. this is part of that.

enjoy the discussion.

[Corso]

It's all good Matt. We all want the same things, it's just the avenues we take to get there may differ.

[Blue Jays]

"...I agree. I am not trying to change anyone's mind.
We are riding in echelon and trying to make sense of the world..."

Thank you for sharing the kind and very gracious words, @ides1056.
As one who has pedaled bicycles with several here, I feel likewise.
The whole "we are riding in an echelon and trying to make sense of the world" is a great way to put it!

[sk_tle]

Because your mind is already set, so why bother? I'm not here to change anyone's mind. Perhaps I'm just reminding folks that not everyone thinks like they do. And they shouldn't be scorned for having their own opinions.

Bottom line: Trump is the President, he won the election, and yet many will say "He's not my president"...well, sorry- unless you live outside the country like Colker- like it or not, he is.

Want to change that? Vote him out.

So since he is the president, everbody has to wait patiently
for the next election without calling out:
- his thousands of lies
- his pro sexual abuse stance
- his choice to worsen global warming while we are already in an emergency situation
- his insults to anyone not sharing his views (is that worthy of a president really?)
- his choice to sollicit a foreign country to interference in the us elections
- his actions and words ridiculizing your whole country in the eyes of the world ( frankly he should be called Kim Jong Trump at this point)
- his poor choice to murder a foreign country official and ruining decades old diplomatic efforts in a sensitive part of the world

That's your point Corso?

[j44ke]

It was the turn that doomed the plane. The plane didn’t turn after being hit. It turned before and towards a military base. The rocket battery was protecting the military base and shot down the plane.

Authorities are trying to figure out why Iran didn’t shut down their airspace. One theory is that it would have sent a signal that an attack was coming. But defensively, it still doesn’t make sense.

Iran Says It Unintentionally Shot Down Ukrainian Airliner - The New York Times

[Corso]

That's your point Corso?

My point is that he should still be treated like any other American: Innocent until proven guilty.

This conversation should move to the impeachment thread, but here goes:

Impeach him on a REAL charge, not some wafer thin, hearsay about "quid pro quo". Mueller investigation didn't work out, so plan B went into effect.

The Impeachment trial will be a joke, as most on both sides have made up their minds. Adam Schiffs' impeachment proceedings were comically one sided.

Your charges Thomas could be addressed and debated one by one, well, maybe not his lies...but what politician isn't guilty of that?

He's been ridiculed from the day he announced he was running. I saw this trend begin with President Bush W- media sources didn't give him the respect of the office, comedians and Hollywood jumped in, and it snowballed from there. Enter Trump, perfect for the same treatment x1000.

Additional point: He ran for election, he won. Period. When you win, the losing side is supposed to accept it. Instead, it's the "Russians", etc etc, the "opposition" began among Democrats and all the rest. Targeting the guy because he wasn't supposed to win but did, is not what I'd call "the American way". It's the Ideal of Democracy here that's been turned sidewise.

How much real meaningful work has the Senate and Congress ignored- issues they were elected to address, instead time and millions being spent to "get" the President?

Finally: I don't know how elections are run in your country Thomas, I don't live there so I don't really care. You asked my point in all of this, now you have it.

[colker]

My point is that he should still be treated like any other American: Innocent until proven guilty.

This conversation should move to the impeachment thread, but here goes:

Impeach him on a REAL charge, not some wafer thin, hearsay about "quid pro quo". Mueller investigation didn't work out, so plan B went into effect.

The Impeachment trial will be a joke, as most on both sides have made up their minds. Adam Schiffs' impeachment proceedings were comically one sided.

Your charges Thomas could be addressed and debated one by one, well, maybe not his lies...but what politician isn't guilty of that?

He's been ridiculed from the day he announced he was running. I saw this trend begin with President Bush W- media sources didn't give him the respect of the office, comedians and Hollywood jumped in, and it snowballed from there. Enter Trump, perfect for the same treatment x1000.

Additional point: He ran for election, he won. Period. When you win, the losing side is supposed to accept it. Instead, it's the "Russians", etc etc, the "opposition" began among Democrats and all the rest. Targeting the guy because he wasn't supposed to win but did, is not what I'd call "the American way". It's the Ideal of Democracy here that's been turned sidewise.

How much real meaningful work has the Senate and Congress ignored- issues they were elected to address, instead time and millions being spent to "get" the President?

Finally: I don't know how elections are run in your country Thomas, I don't live there so I don't really care. You asked my point in all of this, now you have it.

Impeachment is a political move not a criminal trial so it does not matter much the weight of the charges. Once the president loses support in congress he is up for impeachment. The congress is less insulated than the presidente and more sensitive to the nation´s call. This president pretends to be the personification of the people´s wish and acts like an entertainer.. against congress sometimes but most of the times against the nation´s intelectual elites. That´s the mistake of populism.

[rwsaunders]

Just a small point of clarification for those that don’t remember...Trump is the fifth person in U.S. history to become president while losing the nationwide popular vote...in his case by 2.87 million votes. I keep telling my kids and their friends that they have the power to promote change if they pay attention and vote and to look past the current members of Congress, the Senate and the occupant in the White House. If they don’t represent you and your beliefs, promote change.

JQ Adams lost by 40,000
RB Hayes lost by 250,000
B Harrison lost by 90,000
GW Bush lost by 535,000
Trump lost by 2,870,000

The issue of respecting Trump does not come down to the office that he holds, but the manner in which he conducts himself, the manner in which he treats those that are less fortunate and the manner in which he represents the majority of people in this country. In all of those cases, I challenge folks to defend a passing grade for him.

[sk_tle]

The thing is : democracy is not about winning or losing at the election of a president.

Right now I am living in Spain where politic is a mess. Same in France where I was born because it has a similar way and similar flaws to the US system.

In Switzerland where I lived for 18y it is much different. First there is no single country leader but a Federal council whose executive powers are shared among 7 different members of different political party. This leaves much less room for ego and much more for collegiality, research of compromise and consensus. There is a president but it only has a representative role, must talk as the voice of the concil and is designated every year on a round robin basis among the 7 coincil members. People have a much more direct access to democracy as it only requires a certain amount of signatures to initiate a referendum( (to change part of the law) or a popular initiative (for an amendment to the constitution). This is no perfect, I don't think any system is, it leans a bit too much on the conservatism side given the seek of a consensus and I was personnaly frustrated at the slow pace it has to implement laws around basic and obvious societal changes (paternality leave, LGBT rights, ecology...) but it is much better than those I witnessed in other countries as it doesn't have the bi-party and elected vs opposition flaws commpn to many political systems.

[colker]

The thing is : democracy is not about winning or losing at the election of a president.

Right now I am living in Spain where politic is a mess. Same in France where I was born because it has a similar way and similar flaws to the US system.

In Switzerland where I lived for 18y it is much different. First there is no single country leader but a Federal council whose executive powers are shared among 7 different members of different political party. This leaves much less room for ego and much more for collegiality, research of compromise and consensus. There is a president but it only has a representative role, must talk as the voice of the concil and is designated every year on a round robin basis among the 7 coincil members. People have a much more direct access to democracy as it only requires a certain amount of signatures to initiate a referendum( (to change part of the law) or a popular initiative (for an amendment to the constitution). This is no perfect, I don't think any system is, it leans a bit too much on the conservatism side given the seek of a consensus and I was personnaly frustrated at the slow pace it has to implement laws around basic and obvious societal changes (paternality leave, LGBT rights, ecology...) but it is much better than those I witnessed in other countries as it doesn't have the bi-party and elected vs opposition flaws commpn to many political systems.

Any system where laws can be changed by referendum is highly dangerous. Law is based on principle. It should not be changed according to circumstance or people´s whims. You change politicians by vote... not the law. If the US had a system where the constitution could be changed according to waves of opinions situation would be way worse.

[bigbill]

It was the turn that doomed the plane. The plane didn’t turn after being hit. It turned before and towards a military base. The rocket battery was protecting the military base and shot down the plane.

Authorities are trying to figure out why Iran didn’t shut down their airspace. One theory is that it would have sent a signal that an attack was coming. But defensively, it still doesn’t make sense.

Iran Says It Unintentionally Shot Down Ukrainian Airliner - The New York Times

The thing that bugs me the most is the outright refusal of the Iranians until yesterday, to take responsibility. They knew from the beginning, a battery fired missiles at an airborne target, you can't ignore that. Satellite imagery showed the thermal plumes of a missile followed by an explosion. Now they have to admit it because they've invited Canada and Boeing to investigate. So either a midgrade military officer who hid the truth for days or a chain of command afraid to tell the Mullahs what actually happened. There is a lot of lost face in Iran today.

But not shutting down their airspace is still a head-scratcher. The internet was buzzing with comparisons of the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988, which we owned up to but still tried to obfuscate.

[Dallas Tex]

Any system where laws can be changed by referendum is highly dangerous. Law is based on principle. It should not be changed according to circumstance or people´s whims. You change politicians by vote... not the law. If the US had a system where the constitution could be changed according to waves of opinions situation would be way worse.

I couldn’t agree more. Folks that think that freedom & democracy is simply another term for ‘majority rules‘ are mistaken.

[sk_tle]

Any system where laws can be changed by referendum is highly dangerous. Law is based on principle. It should not be changed according to circumstance or people´s whims. You change politicians by vote... not the law. If the US had a system where the constitution could be changed according to waves of opinions situation would be way worse.

Not every law is changed like that. You first need a decent amount to initiate a referendum which is a first barrier. The senate also has to validate the constitutionnality of the law. And more often than not if a law appear too extreme the federate council propose an alternate one that follow the idea in a much more concensual manner.

[Matthew Strongin]

How much real meaningful work has the Senate and Congress ignored- issues they were elected to address, instead time and millions being spent to "get" the President?

I'll leave the impeachment discussion to the other thread, but are you implying that the reason laws aren't being passed is due to Democrats and their efforts to "get" Trump? You do know that Mitch McConnell is stonewalling bills that pass in the House, right?

House Democrats have passed hundreds of bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them - Vox

[mzilliox]

I'll leave the impeachment discussion to the other thread, but are you implying that the reason laws aren't being passed is due to Democrats and their efforts to "get" Trump? You do know that Mitch McConnell is stonewalling bills that pass in the House, right?

House Democrats have passed hundreds of bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them - Vox

Of course there are bills to pass, and of course they are not passing, because at this point any step over the line is viewed by trump as losing, so we all lose.

But more to the point, when jclay and i referred to our endless wars and the cost of them when that time and money could be used for infrastructure, services for Americans and existential crises, you know, things we need to govern and pass bills for, this was the reply:
"And you ASSUME the list of YOUR priorities " services for Americans, using taxation for schooling instead of war, considering existential crises like nuclear war, climate change, and automation/AI" are everyone's. So how can I agree or disagree that Trump is the best when your list may not align with mine? Or others who voted for Trump?"

so which bills do you wish the "do nothing dems' would let trump do? this would help us understand where your priorities are other than "not hillary"

[j44ke]

O

The thing that bugs me the most is the outright refusal of the Iranians until yesterday, to take responsibility. They knew from the beginning, a battery fired missiles at an airborne target, you can't ignore that. Satellite imagery showed the thermal plumes of a missile followed by an explosion. Now they have to admit it because they've invited Canada and Boeing to investigate. So either a midgrade military officer who hid the truth for days or a chain of command afraid to tell the Mullahs what actually happened. There is a lot of lost face in Iran today.

But not shutting down their airspace is still a head-scratcher. The internet was buzzing with comparisons of the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988, which we owned up to but still tried to obfuscate.

I keep wondering if somehow there was a quid pro quo. That the Iranians did not clear the air because they knew there would be no counter because they had been allowed the symbolic strike with no fatalities to assuage the Revolutionary Guards and the Ayatollah.

Consider a scenario in which Iran and Saudi Arabia are negotiating some form of detente, and the Saudi’s price is the removal of two generals of the proxy insurgencies, one in Iraq and one in Yemen, who are beloved by two out of three components of the Iranian government. How do you get rid of them? Feed them to the US through intelligence. Then when the Ayatollah and Rev Guard scream for blood, arrange an attack that the US knows about 3 hours in advance.

The only snags? The US only got one of the generals and a plane turns the wrong way & gets shot down by a rocket battery manned by a jumpy bunch of guys expecting Armageddon.

Would make a good movie - Syriana II maybe - but it doesn’t make sense.

[mzilliox]

O

I keep wondering if somehow there was a quid pro quo. That the Iranians did not clear the air because they knew there would be no counter because they had been allowed the symbolic strike with no fatalities to assuage the Revolutionary Guards and the Ayatollah.

Consider a scenario in which Iran and Saudi Arabia are negotiating some form of detente, and the Saudi’s price is the removal of two generals of the proxy insurgencies, one in Iraq and one in Yemen, who are beloved by two out of three components of the Iranian government. How do you get rid of them? Feed them to the US through intelligence. Then when the Ayatollah and Rev Guard scream for blood, arrange an attack that the US knows about 3 hours in advance.

The only snags? The US only got one of the generals and a plane turns the wrong way & gets shot down by a rocket battery manned by a jumpy bunch of guys expecting Armageddon.

Would make a good movie - Syriana II maybe - but it doesn’t make sense.

politics are so weird. this is crazy, and kinda interesting, and crazy. good take, call a hollywood director!

[j44ke]

O

I keep wondering if somehow there was a quid pro quo. That the Iranians did not clear the air because they knew there would be no counter because they had been allowed the symbolic strike with no fatalities to assuage the Revolutionary Guards and the Ayatollah.

Consider a scenario in which Iran and Saudi Arabia are negotiating some form of detente, and the Saudi’s price is the removal of two generals of the proxy insurgencies, one in Iraq and one in Yemen, who are beloved by two out of three components of the Iranian government. How do you get rid of them? Feed them to the US through intelligence. Then when the Ayatollah and Rev Guard scream for blood, arrange an attack that the US knows about 3 hours in advance.

The only snags? The US only got one of the generals and a plane turns the wrong way & gets shot down by a rocket battery manned by a jumpy bunch of guys expecting Armageddon.

Would make a good movie - Syriana II maybe - but it doesn’t make sense.

Edit that - plane didn’t turn or otherwise deviate from its planned course. The Iranians just shot it down.

[colker]

Edit that - plane didn’t turn or otherwise deviate from its planned course. The Iranians just shot it down.

Seems they proved they can sc$%& things up on a way higher magnitude than the US.