|
Post by FLCardinalFan on Sept 18, 2020 17:30:26 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by thomas cat on Sept 18, 2020 18:17:25 GMT -7
I'm not going to get into the politics of this, but this is huge for all kinds of reasons. Its almost the last thing our country needs. We are so divided and this will make it worse.
God help us. We need level headed people to sort this out.....but are there any level headed people left in our government?
|
|
|
Post by vwvectors on Sept 18, 2020 23:59:17 GMT -7
RGB should have retired under Obama but wanted to retire under Hillary but that didn’t work out. I feel empathy for her family BUT RGB was a terrible justice because she constantly legislated from the bench. Regardless of what side of the aisle one is on that is the one thing a judge should not do.
Also I know it’s in the constitution but the lifetime appointments gotta go. It’s a travesty to have anyone that elderly & riddled with cancer not to be able (or want to) removed from the bench. Goes to show how power corrupts these individuals stay in office till they die.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Sept 19, 2020 3:32:55 GMT -7
RGB should have retired under Obama but wanted to retire under Hillary but that didn’t work out. I feel empathy for her family BUT RGB was a terrible justice because she constantly legislated from the bench. Regardless of what side of the aisle one is on that is the one thing a judge should not do. Also I know it’s in the constitution but the lifetime appointments gotta go. It’s a travesty to have anyone that elderly & riddled with cancer not to be able (or want to) removed from the bench. Goes to show how power corrupts these individuals stay in office till they die. I could not agree more with your thinking that Ginsberg picked Clinton to name her replacement upon retirement. How'd that fantasy pick turn out? I met two Supreme Court justices in my lifetime. Justice 'Tony' Scalia and Justice 'Ruth' Ginsberg. Justice Scalia and I met at the USMC War College in a in classroom setting in 1996. He was plainspoken, lighthearted, and friendly when asked hard questions by my Marine classmates. I asked the Justice about the President's authority to make war without Congressional approval. The Justice said precedent was set when the nuclear era started and missiles could end humanity in 60 minutes. Congress was not interested in debating a nuclear war. Justice Ginsberg and I met at a reception at the Australian Embassy, downtown Washington, in 2000. She was warm and approachable, citing that the ballroom was full of happy people. I noted when we shook hands that she was wearing a formal gown and white lace gloves. I was wearing my Navy officer's winter dress uniform. We were standing within arm's length of each other talking -- but could not have been farther apart as Americans; I just sensed that our brains were wired differently. About lifetime appointments for judges, I'm okay with that, for senior judge positions only though. Their decisions can affect people for decades. The bench is one and only part of our government that has to stay above the daily political theater. That does not happen often these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 5:27:43 GMT -7
I'm not going to get into the politics of this, but this is huge for all kinds of reasons. Its almost the last thing our country needs. We are so divided and this will make it worse.God help us. We need level headed people to sort this out.....but are there any level headed people left in our government? The only way her passing will make things worse is hypocrisy. When an opening occurred during Obama's presence in office McConnell blocked his nominee saying a new appointment should not take place until after the then upcoming presidential election so that the American people has a voice in the matter. If he's consistent and sticks to that declared principle (which of course he won't), then there would be no arguing the matter.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Sept 19, 2020 5:43:55 GMT -7
I'm not going to get into the politics of this, but this is huge for all kinds of reasons. Its almost the last thing our country needs. We are so divided and this will make it worse.God help us. We need level headed people to sort this out.....but are there any level headed people left in our government? The only way her passing will make things worse is hypocrisy. When an opening occurred during Obama's presence in office McConnell blocked his nominee saying a new appointment should not take place until after the then upcoming presidential election so that the American people has a voice in the matter. If he's consistent and sticks to that declared principle (which of course he won't), then there would be no arguing the matter. You conflated politicians and hypocrites. Which is the way it truly is in our messy and loud democracy since 1776. I think the US democratic process is one of the most irritating political processes there is on the planet. But, the US process is preferred by me compared to statist and autocratic processes at some other capitals: Beijing, Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 6:12:39 GMT -7
The only way her passing will make things worse is hypocrisy. When an opening occurred during Obama's presence in office McConnell blocked his nominee saying a new appointment should not take place until after the then upcoming presidential election so that the American people has a voice in the matter. If he's consistent and sticks to that declared principle (which of course he won't), then there would be no arguing the matter. You conflated politicians and hypocrites. Which is the way it truly is in our messy and loud democracy since 1776. I think the US democratic process is one of the most irritating political processes there is on the planet. But, the US process is preferred by me compared to statist and autocratic processes at some other capitals: Beijing, Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, etc. Irritating for sure I most certainly agree, but it doesn't have to lack integrity. And whenever integrity is lacking, our preferred system of government is threatened. I see such a threat when habitual lying and double standard practices start to become accepted as normal, because that's how kings and dictators come about in leadership.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Sept 19, 2020 6:34:16 GMT -7
Regarding integrity, we both can cite multiple examples of former US presidents in either party treading below the bar for whatever purpose.
Politics is ugly by definition. Politician's behavior is sometimes also ugly. But we move on after each putrid incident. Voting, recall, and impeachment are key to change in every case.
Somehow, the country did not accept any bad president's behavior as normal, for him or for future presidents. Accountability is enforced through democratic processes that I just cited. Furthermore, I do not fear kings and dictators in the White House ever. None have emerged and ruled us past or present. I don't think that threat will happen so long as we have the current Constitution and the people stand up and reject anarchists (anarchists are defined by Webster's Dictionary as 'people who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power').
|
|
|
Post by vwvectors on Sept 19, 2020 9:08:05 GMT -7
RGB should have retired under Obama but wanted to retire under Hillary but that didn’t work out. I feel empathy for her family BUT RGB was a terrible justice because she constantly legislated from the bench. Regardless of what side of the aisle one is on that is the one thing a judge should not do. Also I know it’s in the constitution but the lifetime appointments gotta go. It’s a travesty to have anyone that elderly & riddled with cancer not to be able (or want to) removed from the bench. Goes to show how power corrupts these individuals stay in office till they die. I could not agree more with your thinking that Ginsberg picked Clinton to name her replacement upon retirement. How'd that fantasy pick turn out? I met two Supreme Court justices in my lifetime. Justice 'Tony' Scalia and Justice 'Ruth' Ginsberg. Justice Scalia and I met at the USMC War College in a in classroom setting in 1996. He was plainspoken, lighthearted, and friendly when asked hard questions by my Marine classmates. I asked the Justice about the President's authority to make war without Congressional approval. The Justice said precedent was set when the nuclear era started and missiles could end humanity in 60 minutes. Congress was not interested in debating a nuclear war. Justice Ginsberg and I met at a reception at the Australian Embassy, downtown Washington, in 2000. She was warm and approachable, citing that the ballroom was full of happy people. I noted when we shook hands that she was wearing a formal gown and white lace gloves. I was wearing my Navy officer's winter dress uniform. We were standing within arm's length of each other talking -- but could not have been farther apart as Americans; I just sensed that our brains were wired differently. About lifetime appointments for judges, I'm okay with that, for senior judge positions only though. Their decisions can affect people for decades. The bench is one and only part of our government that has to stay above the daily political theater. That does not happen often these days. Just a thought, instead of a lifetime appointment how about a term on the SCOTUS of 20 25 or hell even 30 years. A 20 or 25 yr term should be able to keep them above the political fray plus making $250K a yr (+ pension) gives them the financial security.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 13:50:06 GMT -7
Regarding integrity, we both can cite multiple examples of former US presidents in either party treading below the bar for whatever purpose. Politics is ugly by definition. Politician's behavior is sometimes also ugly. But we move on after each putrid incident. Voting, recall, and impeachment are key to change in every case. Somehow, the country did not accept any bad president's behavior as normal, for him or for future presidents. Accountability is enforced through democratic processes that I just cited. Furthermore, I do not fear kings and dictators in the White House ever. None have emerged and ruled us past or present. I don't think that threat will happen so long as we have the current Constitution and the people stand up and reject anarchists (anarchists are defined by Webster's Dictionary as 'people who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power'). I see nothing wrong with any president including Trump, wanting a judge on the SC that he feels will uphold his agenda. But when a senate chair blocks a president's nomination under the argument that it should not take place during an election year until after the election for the sake of the American people to have a voice, only to then move the goal post in order to benefit his own party, then it indeed becomes an integrity issue beyond basic politics. Meanwhile too I believe the "it will never happen here" argument only increases the chances that it could in that it invites ignoring critical facts, and especially if you reference the political climate that has steadily evolved with some of the historical changes in governments. We are seeing similar signs that can be argued. Granted whether anything more becomes of it remains to be seen and I will grant you that, but some of the parallels should be noted and not just ignored. Furthermore I never thought I would ever witness a president......from either party......go before the whole world and lend credibility to a dictator over our own intelligence agency charged with protecting us, and even ignoring evidence from our national security regarding a bounty put on the heads of our military by said dictator as well as his not even bringing it up at a meeting with him after the report. I would also beg the question as to why any president would meet with a communist dictator privately behind closed doors and suggest it's nobody's business when questioned about it. Elections are the backbone of our free nation and for a foreign dictator to interfere in any way is an attack on our homeland and makes a mockery of those who went so far as to give their lives so that I could vote. Every American should be outraged about that regardless of partisan politics, yet approximately 30% or more of voters aren't and his party is silently complicit. That in and of itself should be a warning sign of the direction we're gravitating towards, including this president's own words that he'd welcome foreign intervention in our election process. He has plenty of followers that accepts his behavior as normal of which you suggest the country wouldn't accept, but there are plenty that apparently do.
|
|
|
Post by vwvectors on Sept 19, 2020 22:36:51 GMT -7
Regarding integrity, we both can cite multiple examples of former US presidents in either party treading below the bar for whatever purpose. Politics is ugly by definition. Politician's behavior is sometimes also ugly. But we move on after each putrid incident. Voting, recall, and impeachment are key to change in every case. Somehow, the country did not accept any bad president's behavior as normal, for him or for future presidents. Accountability is enforced through democratic processes that I just cited. Furthermore, I do not fear kings and dictators in the White House ever. None have emerged and ruled us past or present. I don't think that threat will happen so long as we have the current Constitution and the people stand up and reject anarchists (anarchists are defined by Webster's Dictionary as 'people who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power'). I see nothing wrong with any president including Trump, wanting a judge on the SC that he feels will uphold his agenda. But when a senate chair blocks a president's nomination under the argument that it should not take place during an election year until after the election for the sake of the American people to have a voice, only to then move the goal post in order to benefit his own party, then it indeed becomes an integrity issue beyond basic politics. Meanwhile too I believe the "it will never happen here" argument only increases the chances that it could in that it invites ignoring critical facts, and especially if you reference the political climate that has steadily evolved with some of the historical changes in governments. We are seeing similar signs that can be argued. Granted whether anything more becomes of it remains to be seen and I will grant you that, but some of the parallels should be noted and not just ignored. Furthermore I never thought I would ever witness a president......from either party......go before the whole world and lend credibility to a dictator over our own intelligence agency charged with protecting us, and even ignoring evidence from our national security regarding a bounty put on the heads of our military by said dictator as well as his not even bringing it up at a meeting with him after the report. I would also beg the question as to why any president would meet with a communist dictator privately behind closed doors and suggest it's nobody's business when questioned about it. Elections are the backbone of our free nation and for a foreign dictator to interfere in any way is an attack on our homeland and makes a mockery of those who went so far as to give their lives so that I could vote. Every American should be outraged about that regardless of partisan politics, yet approximately 30% or more of voters aren't and his party is silently complicit. That in and of itself should be a warning sign of the direction we're gravitating towards, including this president's own words that he'd welcome foreign intervention in our election process. He has plenty of followers that accepts his behavior as normal of which you suggest the country wouldn't accept, but there are plenty that apparently do. I feel it all politics is partisan it’s just the nature of the game. There have been POTUS that met or talked privately to (communist) dictators such as FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy & Reagan to name a few. It’s been done before right or wrong. If you flipped the script would & dems were in charge of the Senate would they do the same thing I believe they would without hesitation. If RBG would have released her grip of wanting to be in power till the end she should have retired when Obama was in. Obama should have used some of that charisma to get to RBG to hang up the robe now they are trying to do damage control on a major political tactical error. And as far as the CIA (CIA has their own agenda) goes I think any POTUS should be extremely skeptical of any intelligence they bring to the WH.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Sept 20, 2020 4:19:48 GMT -7
I see nothing wrong with any president including Trump, wanting a judge on the SC that he feels will uphold his agenda. But when a senate chair blocks a president's nomination under the argument that it should not take place during an election year until after the election for the sake of the American people to have a voice, only to then move the goal post in order to benefit his own party, then it indeed becomes an integrity issue beyond basic politics. Meanwhile too I believe the "it will never happen here" argument only increases the chances that it could in that it invites ignoring critical facts, and especially if you reference the political climate that has steadily evolved with some of the historical changes in governments. We are seeing similar signs that can be argued. Granted whether anything more becomes of it remains to be seen and I will grant you that, but some of the parallels should be noted and not just ignored. Furthermore I never thought I would ever witness a president......from either party......go before the whole world and lend credibility to a dictator over our own intelligence agency charged with protecting us, and even ignoring evidence from our national security regarding a bounty put on the heads of our military by said dictator as well as his not even bringing it up at a meeting with him after the report. I would also beg the question as to why any president would meet with a communist dictator privately behind closed doors and suggest it's nobody's business when questioned about it. Elections are the backbone of our free nation and for a foreign dictator to interfere in any way is an attack on our homeland and makes a mockery of those who went so far as to give their lives so that I could vote. Every American should be outraged about that regardless of partisan politics, yet approximately 30% or more of voters aren't and his party is silently complicit. That in and of itself should be a warning sign of the direction we're gravitating towards, including this president's own words that he'd welcome foreign intervention in our election process. He has plenty of followers that accepts his behavior as normal of which you suggest the country wouldn't accept, but there are plenty that apparently do. I feel it all politics is partisan it’s just the nature of the game. There have been POTUS that met or talked privately to (communist) dictators such as FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy & Reagan to name a few. It’s been done before right or wrong. If you flipped the script would & dems were in charge of the Senate would they do the same thing I believe they would without hesitation. If RBG would have released her grip of wanting to be in power till the end she should have retired when Obama was in. Obama should have used some of that charisma to get to RBG to hang up the robe now they are trying to do damage control on a major political tactical error. And as far as the CIA (CIA has their own agenda) goes I think any POTUS should be extremely skeptical of any intelligence they bring to the WH. About your last bullet...IMV, The civilians that manage DNI, CIA, and FBI are political nominees who are approved by the Senate. These managers are human, bias is inevitable. Agencies do strongly resist having an intelligence assessment influenced by a politician. In 2016, agency resistance was affected by WH behaviors--we all are aware of the tomes written about foreign activities. Intelligence assessment influence by a politician is an especially risky behavior. A case in point: A former POTUS and his SECSTATE both claimed that 'Iraq has nukes'; a bloody and costly war ensured starting in 2003. A few years later, the world learned Iraq had 'no nukes,' just nuke plans, and the USG intelligence assessment was shaped to actually cause an Iraq regime change. I simplified the story to make a point. Another case in point: In 1898, the battleship USS Maine suffered a catastrophic explosion and sank in Havana harbor, Cuba, costing the lives of 200-plus sailors. The US relationship with Spain was greatly strained at the time. US politcians claimed the USS Maine was blown up by anarchists, and then politicians (@ WH?) persuaded the US Congress to declare a state of war. The Spanish-American War ensued, costing many thousands of lives and leaving islander Cubans essentially 'colonized' by Yankee overseers until Castro rose to power 60 years later. The price of the war was reasonable after tallying up 60 years of Caribbean peace, huge territorial gains at the US southwest and western Pacific, and at the Isthmus of Panama. To this day, the actual cause of the USS Maine explosion remains unknown. The senior US military officers that manage the DIA, NGA, MDA, and NSA are SECDEF nominees that are approved by the Senate. The nomination process reduces political influence. Anyway, RIP Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She was an incredible woman.
|
|
|
Post by vwvectors on Sept 20, 2020 7:44:34 GMT -7
I feel it all politics is partisan it’s just the nature of the game. There have been POTUS that met or talked privately to (communist) dictators such as FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy & Reagan to name a few. It’s been done before right or wrong. If you flipped the script would & dems were in charge of the Senate would they do the same thing I believe they would without hesitation. If RBG would have released her grip of wanting to be in power till the end she should have retired when Obama was in. Obama should have used some of that charisma to get to RBG to hang up the robe now they are trying to do damage control on a major political tactical error. And as far as the CIA (CIA has their own agenda) goes I think any POTUS should be extremely skeptical of any intelligence they bring to the WH. About your last bullet...IMV, The civilians that manage DNI, CIA, and FBI are political nominees who are approved by the Senate. These managers are human, bias is inevitable. Agencies do strongly resist having an intelligence assessment influenced by a politician. In 2016, agency resistance was affected by WH behaviors--we all are aware of the tomes written about foreign activities. Intelligence assessment influence by a politician is an especially risky behavior. A case in point: A former POTUS and his SECSTATE both claimed that 'Iraq has nukes'; a bloody and costly war ensured starting in 2003. A few years later, the world learned Iraq had 'no nukes,' just nuke plans, and the USG intelligence assessment was shaped to actually cause an Iraq regime change. I simplified the story to make a point. Another case in point: In 1898, the battleship USS Maine suffered a catastrophic explosion and sank in Havana harbor, Cuba, costing the lives of 200-plus sailors. The US relationship with Spain was greatly strained at the time. US politcians claimed the USS Maine was blown up by anarchists, and then politicians (@ WH?) persuaded the US Congress to declare a state of war. The Spanish-American War ensued, costing many thousands of lives and leaving islander Cubans essentially 'colonized' by Yankee overseers until Castro rose to power 60 years later. The price of the war was reasonable after tallying up 60 years of Caribbean peace, huge territorial gains at the US southwest and western Pacific, and at the Isthmus of Panama. To this day, the actual cause of the USS Maine explosion remains unknown. The senior US military officers that manage the DIA, NGA, MDA, and NSA are SECDEF nominees that are approved by the Senate. The nomination process reduces political influence. Anyway, RIP Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She was an incredible woman. I concur bias is inevitable. The intelligence agency’s have gotten a lot wrong over the decades from the bay of pigs to weapons of mass destruction. It also seems like whenever we go to war with a country (Germany, Japan, S.Korea, Afghanistan come to mind) we never really leave...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2020 9:54:30 GMT -7
PMI & VV,
I'm seeing a lot of dancing around the central point. Nobody's suggesting we are always right. My wife use to work for the government so I know things aren't always what they should be or said to be. And also lets be clear that I wasn't saying no president has ever met with a foreign dictator, but that no president has ever done it in total secrecy (no interpreter, or no press or staff taking notes) and did so without any accountability though maintaining privacy on sensitive matters for security reasons. Show me one that ever did what Trump did?
Meanwhile too let me attempt to cut to the chase with a question: The CIA says Russia did it (election interference and bounty). Russia says they didn't. After all is said and done, who are "YOU" gonna believe and who would "YOU" expect the president to defend?
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Sept 20, 2020 10:19:18 GMT -7
Do you know the phrases 'cut out?' 'Intermediary?' Shuttle Diplomacy?' In espionage parlance, a cutout is a mutually trusted intermediary, method or channel of communication that facilitates the exchange of information between agents. In diplomacy and international relations, an intermediary may convey messages between principals in a dispute, allowing the avoidance of direct principal-to-principal contact. Where the two parties are geographically distant, the process may be termed shuttle diplomacy. The current POTUS is rewriting the whole tradecraft. Some don't like being marginalized.
|
|