Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

And the Iraqi army couldn't, it collapsed.

Have you forgotten the parade of uncontrollable consequences such as over a million dead and a power vacuum that first brought into existence al-Qaida in Iraq and then allowed it to grow to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant?

 sebster wrote:
We've been over this before. Your position is silly. Having the bomb doesn't mean you never dare risk any confrontation on any kid of level.

"Me President, Russia is occupying Alaska, should we scramble a response?"

"No, they have the bomb, we must never confront them in any way, about anything, ever."

"But conventional forces can still be used, escalation to nuclear weapons would be as lethal for Russia as it would for us, so neither side would want to escalate."

"No! Rosebuddy said we can't do it!"

A nuclear power directly attacking another nuclear power is the worst scenario to use to argue against not wanting a nuclear power to directly attack another nuclear power.

Why would Russia invade Alaska, anyway? That's particularly farfetched. I mean, for feth's sake, at least come up with something that isn't so obviously within inches of nuclear war as Russia invading the United States. Not even proxy war, two ships blowing eachother up in the middle of the ocean somewhere or a couple of units in a third country murdering each other. The only thing that is higher on the ladder of nuclear war than Russia invading the US is actual nuclear war.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-navy-moving-us-syria-bluff-2018-4

Regardless of whether or not you think the US doing anything is a good idea, I am not sure how anyone can sit by and think allowing the use of chemical weapons unchecked is a good idea, regardless of who is doing it. The most important part of this, is if you do not stop it, and you send a message that these actions will go unpunished, then they will continue. And not by just Assad, but others as well. Russia has used nerve agents and radioactive poisoning in other countries, have used poison gas against its own people, as well as supported others in doing the same. Its unreal that this is even being debated.

There will be no nuclear war. Its ridiculous to even go down this road. Even if the US wipes the Mediterranean and the Middle East clean of the Russians, there will not be a nuclear war. Action in the Baltics and bering Straight? Sure. Open ocean? Sure. But to think we're going to see nukes flying over Syria is pure fantasy.

If Russia's military collapsed during an actual invasion and there was nothing left to resort to? Yes. If another country launched nukes at them? Sure. But Putin isn't going to end his existence because he loses his fleet and units in Syria.

Give me a break people. He hasn't worked this hard for this long to throw it all away over Assad.

BTW, seems like the US and Russia has been talking about this. Lots of activity at the Russian bases. A lot of important Syrian assets being moved to Russian bases, so as long as this is taking, I am not sure what worthwhile targets will be available to the US by the time they have everything in place. But Trump will send his message. There is no way he wants to be compared to Obama for not doing anything. He's done it once already, and he will do it again. Just doubt at this point if it will destroy anything meaningful.

And if the US only bombs Syrian targets, I think Russia will take whatever action it can to stop the missiles themselves, but they will be surrounded by too much US firepower to go up against the US in the region to do anything to retaliate. And its not just the Truman battle group. The US has bases all around the region. And 8 other carrier groups worldwide.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wait....wuuuuuuuuuut?

President

Trump poised to pardon Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, sources say

Well, of course he is. Sure, he obstructed justice, and committed perjury, and leaked classified info, but it will make the liberals mad. Nothing is more important than pandering to people who say gak like "schaedenboner".

I think you have this wrong...

Libby has his law license back... and in 2010 (or thereabouts) he had his voting rights restored. I don't think functionally a pardon helps Libby much at all.

I think this is a batman signal to all the Trumpalos that Trump has the pardon power in his pocket...than trying to encourage any schadenboner... *hint* *hint* Cohen...you paying attention?

If Trump truly wanted to make liberal "heads go splodey" and excite the base he'd better off pardoning anyone convicted related to abortion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, of course he is. Sure, he obstructed justice, and committed perjury, and leaked classified info, but it will make the liberals mad. Nothing is more important than pandering to people who say gak like "schaedenboner".

Exciting the base might be part of the motive, but it's probably more just a happy side benefit. I think the bigger motivation is Trump communicating to certain people that he will pardon them for perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Which is something Trump wants a specific group of people to know. For reasons.

Exactly. Totally my read on this....as this is waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of left field.

 sebster wrote:
I read an interesting comment. The American left hates that they have no political power. The American right hates that they have no cultural power. Both sides are fixated on the fights they're losing.

You nailed it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm seeing some rumblings in the news that Trump, due to our trade war with China that's not a trade war depending on who you ask, is reconsidering the TPP. What's up with that?

China is filling in the vacuum and Trump & friends are going "oh gak".

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just his usual U-Turn when faced with reality.

Headline I saw is 'Trump wants better deal than Obama'.

He really is utterly obsessed with Obama, isn't he?

Yep.

They still evoke Obama in the news from time to time, like he's somehow still in power, and not just sitting at home in his boxers watching Daytime TV.

It's kind of surreal.

Hillary Clinton too, the only people keeping her relevant at this point are republicans that have a hate-on for her.

Well... this is interesting...
Breaking: Referendum to Split Calif. Into 3 States Will Be on Ballot

My parents remembers when Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union as member states...

I've got a few thoughts:
1) I think this is really neat from a historical perspective...
2) Probably does make sense in the long term so that the government would be more responsive to the will of the people...
3) Adding 4 more Senators to Congress! o.O (54 would be the count) But the House members will probably remain unchanged...
4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.

However, if we going splitsville... I'd split CA into two states:

I think this idea was shot down the last few times...

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I read an interesting comment. The American left hates that they have no political power. The American right hates that they have no cultural power. Both sides are fixated on the fights they're losing.

You nailed it.

See I have to object to this. What we're seeing is a cyclical political cycle of the party in power shouldering the blame for everything in the country, and thus getting hammered in the midterm following the election of the president. It's amplified, because Republicans hold just about everything politically. Thing is, this is the same situation we were in in 2010, back when the republicans seized the house from the democrats following Obama's election.

This also happened in 2002 following Bush's election.

The "Political Power" thing here, is swinging in a rather predictable way. (Edit: this next part is 100% my opinion on the matter) It's just harder to galvanize the political base of the party in the executive branch. I personally would call it a matter of frustration, as someone who was a democrat in 2010, you answer for your party on a personal level in interactions. That kind of saps any resolve you have. Yeah, the more extreme wings will turn out to vote (As always) but you loose a Lot of the 40% of the voting populace, that call themselves independent voters.

Further, the Republican Party lacking Cultural power thing is rather unfair? There is for sure a Republican culture as they have diversified their base to be disenfranchised blue collar workers in blue belt areas, in addition to the evangelical and pro-business wings of their party. There is a "Culture" there for them. It's a mix of populism, nationalism, and religiosity that appeals greatly to many people. Agree with it or not, it is undeniably a thing. The party lacks support from younger generations, but it's frankly questionable as to whether or not it's needed (Yet, being a qualifier here).

 whembly wrote:

4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.

On these 2 points specifically. . . .

#4, I think that would greatly depend on how the state would be divided. Like, if it were cut in thirds so that there's north, middle, and south, the middle and southern states would be hard core blue, due to larger cities like Oakland, SD, San Fran, and LA, leaving the far North to be essentially west coast versions of Kentucky or W. Virginia.

#5. On this we agree. . . Especially given the absolutely terrible treatment these places got after last hurricane season, I've read numerous reports that PR still, almost a year later, has parts that do not have electrical power. That is quite frankly unacceptable, especially given their citizenship status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:

Further, the Republican Party lacking Cultural power thing is rather unfair? There is for sure a Republican culture as they have diversified their base to be disenfranchised blue collar workers in blue belt areas, in addition to the evangelical and pro-business wings of their party. There is a "Culture" there for them. It's a mix of populism, nationalism, and religiosity that appeals greatly to many people. Agree with it or not, it is undeniably a thing. The party lacks support from younger generations, but it's frankly questionable as to whether or not it's needed (Yet, being a qualifier here).

It's not that there isn't a culture, it's that there's a segment of the populace that believes that their belief systems are under assault. And furthermore, there are preachers and mouth pieces out there reinforcing that view, by preaching that these "assaults" as made up as they are, are actually working and that the Religious Right's "Culture" is fighting a losing battle. . . . It's a viewpoint that really gained steam starting in the 1980s with a few highlight moments and incidents of political theater.

Its interesting, and I actually support this for the most part. I would prefer some different lines of separation though, personally, I would include San Francisco in the Central CA section. . But going by the lines, it appears that the Southern CA would NOT include LA. LA would be in the Central CA section. So that state would pretty much be a guaranteed new Red State.

But just with the lines as they are, the Southern CA would be a red state, Central CA would be a blue state, and Northern CA would likely be a swing state.

And yeah, while we are at it Puerto Rico needs to become a state already.

I'm skeptical, and the previous posts demonstrate why: any split is inevitably going to be a fight over how to draw the lines for partisan advantage at the national level rather than what is best for the state.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:

Further, the Republican Party lacking Cultural power thing is rather unfair? There is for sure a Republican culture as they have diversified their base to be disenfranchised blue collar workers in blue belt areas, in addition to the evangelical and pro-business wings of their party. There is a "Culture" there for them. It's a mix of populism, nationalism, and religiosity that appeals greatly to many people. Agree with it or not, it is undeniably a thing. The party lacks support from younger generations, but it's frankly questionable as to whether or not it's needed (Yet, being a qualifier here).

It's not that there isn't a culture, it's that there's a segment of the populace that believes that their belief systems are under assault. And furthermore, there are preachers and mouth pieces out there reinforcing that view, by preaching that these "assaults" as made up as they are, are actually working and that the Religious Right's "Culture" is fighting a losing battle. . . . It's a viewpoint that really gained steam starting in the 1980s with a few highlight moments and incidents of political theater.

I would say we're Firmly in another period of political theater though, so this could be shoveling a bit of coal into the boiler.

And I don't disagree with you for the most part. There is a heavy undercurrent of "Belief under siege" here. That doesn't discount it from existing though, and whether it's justified or not... Does that Matter at the end of the day?

 sebster wrote:
Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?

I've seen it reported that Trump's lawyers require another lawyer to be present during meetings, due to Trump's inability to remember details and keep his lies straight. If I was a longtime associate of Trump, I'd keep a record of everything said at all times too.

San Diego is big enough to make it a Blue State as well.

I don't remember this being mentioned anywhere but a Trump judicial candidate went on record during confirmation hearings that she thought Brown vs Board of Education was wrongly decided.

That someone who would say that would be nominated just blows me away.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm skeptical, and the previous posts demonstrate why: any split is inevitably going to be a fight over how to draw the lines for partisan advantage at the national level rather than what is best for the state.

Well its going to be a fight between Liberals, who will want no split whatsoever, and Conservatives who will want the split to happen. The Liberals have enjoyed the extra seats and votes that the conservative minority gives the state by boosting the population, while still being small enough to have no effect on the state and national politics.

And actually splitting it along the conservative and liberal party lines would be best for all the voters in question. You don't have the disenfranchisement of conservative voters in CA, who while a minority are a considerable minority. The conservative population of CA is larger than the total population of several states.

Not to mention splitting the urban areas off on their own would be better in terms of legislation and taxation. You'd not have the urban areas dominating the rural areas so thoroughly in terms of overall legislation and where tax money gets spent.

 feeder wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?

I've seen it reported that Trump's lawyers require another lawyer to be present during meetings, due to Trump's inability to remember details and keep his lies straight. If I was a longtime associate of Trump, I'd keep a record of everything said at all times too.

I've heard of lawyers doing that. I think it comes down to what you do for a living, who your clients are, how litigious things get, and what sector you work in. Presidents taping conversations is pretty common too, hence the Nixon Tapes.

Ash87 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?

I've seen it reported that Trump's lawyers require another lawyer to be present during meetings, due to Trump's inability to remember details and keep his lies straight. If I was a longtime associate of Trump, I'd keep a record of everything said at all times too.

I've heard of lawyers doing that. I think it comes down to what you do for a living, who your clients are, how litigious things get, and what sector you work in. Presidents taping conversations is pretty common too, hence the Nixon Tapes.

Yeah, since posting that, I went digging for the source. It's from a 1993 interview with his bankruptcy lawyer Patrick McGhan. So not exactly current events.

But if the FBI got ahold of Cohen's tapes. Man.

@sebster. No, I don't glamorize the past or yearn for the days of the gunboat and General Gordon defending Khartoum.

Warfare is the most serious thing any nation can engage in. As Sun Tzu said, it is a matter of safety or ruin for a nation.

Is it too much to ask that Western leaders engage in some analysis and rational thinking before they start blasting off missiles?

We have the most powerful nation on God's earth conducting international diplomacy and possible military action by twitter and PR men

Wednesday. Trump to Assad: you're gonna pay baby! yee ha! Launch the missiles. My genitalia is bigger than yours!

Thursday. Trump to Assad: It's happening sometime soon. Don't ask me when, but it's happening. LOSER!

Friday. Trump to Mattis: find me proof. Something. Anything. And did my hotel catch fire the other day?

Feth me with a fishfork!!!!

That is utterly, utterly, utterly, embarrassing. Shambolic. I am ashamed of myself for believing for a minute back in 2016 that Trump might have done something different on US foreign policy.

I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.

The man is an utter buffoon. This is how empires die.

The nation that gave the world John Adams, Madison, Twain, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, hell even Nixon, bad as he was, conducted foreign policy better than this...

The Western world is being ran into the ground by idiots, buffoons, and people who should be exiled to an igloo in Alaska for evermore...

As bad as imperialists were in the 19th century Sebster, they at least had some semblance of what they were doing and what they wanted...

 feeder wrote:

Ash87 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Its now coming out that Michael Cohen recorded a lot of his phone conversations. Whether the FBI captured these recordings, and whether they lead to anything is unknown and really just speculation at this point, but the takeaway for me at this point is a complete lack of surprise that another one of Trump's inner circle turns out to be a really weird guy. Who tapes phone calls? Why are all of Trump's people so freaking weird?

I've seen it reported that Trump's lawyers require another lawyer to be present during meetings, due to Trump's inability to remember details and keep his lies straight. If I was a longtime associate of Trump, I'd keep a record of everything said at all times too.

I've heard of lawyers doing that. I think it comes down to what you do for a living, who your clients are, how litigious things get, and what sector you work in. Presidents taping conversations is pretty common too, hence the Nixon Tapes.

Yeah, since posting that, I went digging for the source. It's from a 1993 interview with his bankruptcy lawyer Patrick McGhan. So not exactly current events.

But if the FBI got ahold of Cohen's tapes. Man.

It's too nebulous of a thing for me to say yay or nay there. I think the Cohen raid is signficant for the impact it can potentially have on the Mueller investigation, in terms of who will still be working for the DOJ by the time this has blown over. Whether it produced good information is another question entirely. I just, there's way too much potential here for me to objectively say whether or not I think this is a good or a bad thing

The Mind Boggles here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.
\

I call you out Guy.

Not really... you seem like a cool dude.

For the USA to back Russia into a corner with threats of military action, and then start scrambling around days later for evidence of Assad using chemical weapons...

God help us all...

Incompetent? It's a dictionary definition of the word.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Feth me with a fishfork!!!!

That is utterly, utterly, utterly, embarrassing. Shambolic. I am ashamed of myself for believing for a minute back in 2016 that Trump might have done something different on US foreign policy.

I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.

The man is an utter buffoon. This is how empires die.

But you aren't wrong, he is certainly doing something different...

Any way, as pointed out previously, even with all of the madness and tearing down of departments, our founding fathers threw in enough levers into the system to make sure that our government could survive a crazy guy or two. We will be fine, and unless we start enacting the Purge or the Hunger Games, our government may have even learned a valuable lesson or two along the way.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well its going to be a fight between Liberals, who will want no split whatsoever, and Conservatives who will want the split to happen. The Liberals have enjoyed the extra seats and votes that the conservative minority gives the state by boosting the population, while still being small enough to have no effect on the state and national politics.

That's probably backwards, depending on the split. CA has a ton of representatives and electoral votes because of its population, but is massively under-represented in the senate. Splitting the state does little or nothing to its representatives, as they're already drawn from local districts. It may be a conservative win with the electoral votes, as it probably at least makes some of them potentially available instead of an automatic 100% D allocation, but it's still a broken system and hopefully by the time any split could be resolved the whole electoral college system will be gone. But offsetting that even in the most ideal pro-conservative scenario is the potential senate gain. Unless the gerrymandering is pretty bad CA goes from having two liberal senators to having 4-6 liberal senators, a decisive swing when the senate is close to 50/50.

And actually splitting it along the conservative and liberal party lines would be best for all the voters in question. You don't have the disenfranchisement of conservative voters in CA, who while a minority are a considerable minority. The conservative population of CA is larger than the total population of several states.

That explains why it's better for the conservatives, but why is it better for liberals? And why would a liberal/conservative split based on ideologies in 2018 be the correct way of setting state borders that will last for generations, into the far future where beliefs and ideological divisions could be entirely different?

Not to mention splitting the urban areas off on their own would be better in terms of legislation and taxation. You'd not have the urban areas dominating the rural areas so thoroughly in terms of overall legislation and where tax money gets spent.

The problem with this is that you end up with another Wyoming-type situation where you have vast regions geographically with low population, significant over-representation at the national level, and difficulty establishing any kind of productive tax base.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Feth me with a fishfork!!!!

That is utterly, utterly, utterly, embarrassing. Shambolic. I am ashamed of myself for believing for a minute back in 2016 that Trump might have done something different on US foreign policy.

I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.

The man is an utter buffoon. This is how empires die.

But you aren't wrong, he is certainly doing something different...

Any way, as pointed out previously, even with all of the madness and tearing down of departments, our founding fathers threw in enough levers into the system to make sure that our government could survive a crazy guy or two. We will be fine, and unless we start enacting the Purge or the Hunger Games, our government may have even learned a valuable lesson or two along the way.

Well, I hope you're right. What worries me is that this is Russia we're talking about. A nation with enough nukes to wipe out the world 10 times over...

I don't doubt for a minute that in a conventional action, the USA would beat Russia. But Russia would hit back, and the USA would lose something. And then Iran or Israel or Turkey get drawn in, and the region goes up in smoke, and all because somebody didn't think before they tweeted.

We're forgetting that Russia is not Iraq, Syria, Libya, or North Korea.

Roll over for them? Never. Poke the bear with a stick when there is no pressing need? Weapon grade stupidity.

And fair is fair, so what would I do, seeing as I'm happy to tell everybody where they're going wrong.

Gather evidence, conduct diplomacy to build allies and get other nations on board to pressure Russia and Syria.

Ask the obvious question of what's really in it for me and my allies, and only as a last resort, with a clear and coherent plan, is military action ever used.

Old school.

The Syria conflict will only end with a negotiated peace and not twitter diplomacy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the USA to back Russia into a corner with threats of military action, and then start scrambling around days later for evidence of Assad using chemical weapons...

God help us all...

Incompetent? It's a dictionary definition of the word.

Incompetence is the mission of this administration. From Trump on down, to Kudlow to Huckabee-Sanders to Pruitt and and Pai and Perry and Mnuchin and Carson and DeVos and dozens of others, competency has been shown to be an active disqualifier from jobs in this administration.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the USA to back Russia into a corner with threats of military action, and then start scrambling around days later for evidence of Assad using chemical weapons...

God help us all...

Incompetent? It's a dictionary definition of the word.

Incompetence is the mission of this administration. From Trump on down, to Kudlow to Huckabee-Sanders to Pruitt and and Pai and Perry and Mnuchin and Carson and DeVos and dozens of others, competency has been shown to be an active disqualifier from jobs in this administration.

It"s like handing the reins of power to the worst examples of the plutocracy is a bad idea in a liberal democracy? Who knew?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

And the Iraqi army couldn't, it collapsed.

Have you forgotten the parade of uncontrollable consequences such as over a million dead and a power vacuum that first brought into existence al-Qaida in Iraq and then allowed it to grow to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant?

Oh I haven't, but that wasn't what you said, let me help you out:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Yes, just like Iraq was a nice and clean little operation done with in two months because the Iraqi army couldn't possibly stand up to US forces.

Emphasis mine, that sound you're hearing is me dragging back the goalposts to their original place. The Iraqi army didn't stand up to US forces.

Also the IS thing is just factually wrong. IS in Iraq was beaten. The power vacuum in Syria is what let it recover and counter attack into Iraq. So really its more the fault of Assad starting a civil war as that represent the moment in which IS fortunes turned around.

Right?

And now for the latest trick...Trump looks like he's going to fire Rosenstein and just pardoned Scooter Libby on the same day he goes on a twitter tirade about leaks...

Supposedly there will be a WH briefing between 2pm and 4pm EST on Rosenstein and possibly Sessions as well.

Meanwhile...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/383041-rosenstein-privately-saying-hes-prepared-to-be-fired-by-trump-report


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383044-trump-issues-pardon-for-scooter-libby

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just his usual U-Turn when faced with reality.

Headline I saw is 'Trump wants better deal than Obama'.

He really is utterly obsessed with Obama, isn't he?

Its almost like he's trying to get into some sort of measuring contest with a black man

 sebster wrote:
Libya up to now has produced about 10,000 dead. That's a tragedy of course, but the dead in in Syria is about 400,000 to 500,000, 40 times greater than Libya.

"This argument blows my mind!"

"Libya was a tragedy."

Well obviously it doesn't blow your mind too much because you just said that I'm right, lol. Libya was a tragedy and yet the conflict wasn't nearly as complicated as Syria, and we (the US) had better leadership with more restraint at the time. By every factor imaginable we had more tools for success in Libya then Syria and yet it still ended up being a shitshow. Anyone who thinks we should do it again with this administration leading the charge is out of touch with reality. I would love to see anyone who disagrees lay out what they think would be a viable military solution to "the Assad problem", a solution meaning something that isn't going to leave Syria as an even bigger hell hole then it already is.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not to mention splitting the urban areas off on their own would be better in terms of legislation and taxation. You'd not have the urban areas dominating the rural areas so thoroughly in terms of overall legislation and where tax money gets spent.

The problem with this is that you end up with another Wyoming-type situation where you have vast regions geographically with low population, significant over-representation at the national level, and difficulty establishing any kind of productive tax base.

This is precisely what I was thinking of when I mentioned Kentucky/W. Virginia in my other post. . . What I mean is that you'd have these large conservative areas that, with what population they do have, is heavily dependent on subsidized programs (aka, welfare). The stats don't lie. Heavily red states use far more tax money at the national level for welfare programs than blue states due. At the same time as these red states are using so much of the welfare money, they are also making wild claims about "laziness" and whatnot, and actively working to cut programs which actually help them. I'm sure we've all heard of the idiots who lament losing their ACA coverage, while 5 minutes earlier bashing "Obamacare" entirely not realizing that the thing they were hating on 5 minutes ago, is the very program they are losing.



On this topic, I did pull up a google maps image of the state of California, and, IMHO, LA is much more southern than it would be a central city. If anything, you could make an argument that Sacremento could/would be the capital of the theoretical northern state, with The Bay being the beginning of the dividing line. This would make SF the largest central city, with LA/SD being the large metro area of the southern state. Also, as I was there over 10 years ago, and I functionally could not tell the difference between where we were in Anaheim/LA, and when we were in San Diego, I think it would be too awkward for lawmakers to try and make a state line through that entire metro area.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
That is utterly, utterly, utterly, embarrassing. Shambolic. I am ashamed of myself for believing for a minute back in 2016 that Trump might have done something different on US foreign policy.

I was wrong... and feel free to call me out on that.

The man is an utter buffoon. This is how empires die.

Well to be fair you were kind of right, it certainly is something different.

The US grip is too strong at the moment to have its informal empire die due to Trump. Actions of Russia and China are partially helping to strengthen parts of the foundation while Trump chips away others. Its too big to go under by the actions of one man, but unless he is followed by a very active president on the foreign policy front it may certainly do irreversible damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Libya up to now has produced about 10,000 dead. That's a tragedy of course, but the dead in in Syria is about 400,000 to 500,000, 40 times greater than Libya.

"This argument blows my mind!"

"Libya was a tragedy."

Well obviously it doesn't blow your mind too much because you just said that I'm right, lol. Libya was a tragedy and yet the conflict wasn't nearly as complicated as Syria, and we (the US) had better leadership with more restraint at the time. By every factor imaginable we had more tools for success in Libya then Syria and yet it still ended up being a shitshow. Anyone who thinks we should do it again with this administration leading the charge is out of touch with reality. I would love to see anyone who disagrees lay out what they think would be a viable military solution to "the Assad problem", a solution meaning something that isn't going to leave Syria as an even bigger hell hole then it already is.

Actually the level of complexity behind both Syria and Libya were about the same. Both had clear objectives in the beginning, depose of Assad/Qaddafi. If the West had intervened in Syria in 2011 too it would not have been much more complicated than Libya.

What failed in Libya is any effort to follow through on what would happen after Qaddafi was deposed off,the problem in Syria was no action at all.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Right?

And now for the latest trick...Trump looks like he's going to fire Rosenstein and just pardoned Scooter Libby on the same day he goes on a twitter tirade about leaks...

Supposedly there will be a WH briefing between 2pm and 4pm EST on Rosenstein and possibly Sessions as well.

Meanwhile...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/383041-rosenstein-privately-saying-hes-prepared-to-be-fired-by-trump-report


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383044-trump-issues-pardon-for-scooter-libby

Everyone I follow has said that there is no chance he'll sack Rosenstein and Sessions over this.

...If he did, I mean...

Look, I personally have adopted this view of the current adminstration where... My preferred brand is in no way, at all in power? So... I'm sitting here watching everything go insane. If Trump Fires Both Rosenstein and Sessions, that's huge. Like, rouse me from my lethargic chuckling huge, because... I mean just, damn.