13
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  5  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 08:05 am
@Bogulum,
Bogulum wrote:

Keeping to my theme that the DOJ and federal law enforcement has been acting/not acting purely out of abject cowardice, vis-a-vis holding Donald Trump accountable:

I think there’s a better than average chance that the SCOTUS may decide that Trump cannot be restricted from running for president, and I think their decision will not be based on anything that even scarcely resembles constitutional grounds. I think the justices that are directly beholden to Trump for their seats on the court may decide purely out of fear of reprisal.

Thoughts?


I can understand why you (or anyone) might suppose that, but if the court rules that Trump can run (which I think it will)...I doubt the motivator for that decision will be "fear." I think they will consider the case reasonably...and base their decision on their personal biases, which we all have.

Frankly, I am tending toward wanting the court to rule "He can run." He is the Repubican candidate most likely to be beaten by Joe Biden...or almost any other Democratic Party candidate.

Having Trump be ruled as ineligable to run is probably the worst outcome possible for the Democrats...and for the Republicans.

Sad what is happening. I never thought I would be seeing our country in such bad shape (even during the McCarthy era)...but here we are.

I think Roberts and Kavanaugh will surprise people. I hope Roberts and Kavanaugh will surprise people. Gorsuch and Barrett may!

Best we not give up hope on the SCOTUS. The entire of the Legislative branch has become hopelessly disfuctional. If the Judiciary falls...we are finished.
Bogulum
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 08:31 am
@Frank Apisa,
You seem to have a faith in the integrity of worms like Kavenaugh and Thomas for which I can’t really make any logical sense. You think they might act out of their biases (which as you say we all have), but not out of fear of what Trump’s acolytes might do… where does this faith in their integrity come from?

(Take a deep breath before continuing, Frank😀).

You know, sometimes I think that for older established white guys like you, it’s somehow deeply threatening to something very foundational to your identities as good American citizens, when the specter is raised of the absolute rot at the center of our systems. And I know you may find my just saying this in itself to be offensive,
but I swear sometimes your reactions just don’t make sense. Why would you doubt that someone on the SC might just not have much personal courage?

Anyway, your last post seems to be saying that you think a failure in the SCOTUS’ part to judge according to the constitution would be both a sign of our utter demise as a country, AND the best possible outcome in terms of Biden’s prospects of winning.

Kinda tricky, ain’t it?

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 08:58 am
@Bogulum,
Quote:
I think the justices that are directly beholden to Trump for their seats on the court may decide purely out of fear of reprisal.

That's not how Trump recently framed it. He suggested that in their desire to be seen as "politically correct" and not look as if they are beholden to him, they may vote against allowing him to stay on the ballot.

Now, knowing Trump's twisted reasoning process, this may be his way of using reverse psychology by pressuring them to remain loyal and show their defiance. "You guys don't want to be seen as bowing to pressure from the mainstream media, do you?"

There's one other possibility that's been raised here before. As Koch-funded apparatchiks they (excluding Thomas*) may actually prefer that Trump were out of the picture, believing that his brand of chaos is bad for the corporate bottom line. I don't believe this is likely, however.

*Given his wife's involvement with the election deniers he's got a great reason to recuse himself but I don't think he will.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  5  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 09:26 am
@Bogulum,
Bogulum wrote:

You seem to have a faith in the integrity of worms like Kavenaugh and Thomas for which I can’t really make any logical sense. You think they might act out of their biases (which as you say we all have), but not out of fear of what Trump’s acolytes might do… where does this faith in their integrity come from?

(Take a deep breath before continuing, Frank😀).

You know, sometimes I think that for older established white guys like you, it’s somehow deeply threatening to something very foundational to your identities as good American citizens, when the specter is raised of the absolute rot at the center of our systems. And I know you may find my just saying this in itself to be offensive,
but I swear sometimes your reactions just don’t make sense. Why would you doubt that someone on the SC might just not have much personal courage?

Anyway, your last post seems to be saying that you think a failure in the SCOTUS’ part to judge according to the constitution would be both a sign of our utter demise as a country, AND the best possible outcome in terms of Biden’s prospects of winning.

Kinda tricky, ain’t it?




Breathing deeply...I agree with all the concerns you expressed here, Snood. I question myself about my HOPES (not faith in) that the people manning our governance are psychologically and morally up to the job.

They may not be...in which case, our great experiment in a democratic republic will fail. A great deal of the science fiction (of which I am a fan) shows the Earth and other planets of fiction being ruled by dictators. Perhaps that is the only way thing eventually out...and the best we can hope for are philosopher kings rather than scum like Trump.

We'll shortly see how things work out in reality. I just thought your request for "thoughts" was reasonable...and I accommodated it.

Whatever SCOTUS comes up with...ALMOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT BE FURTHER CONTESTED. In fact, WILL NOT BE FURTHER CONTESTED...legally.

We can blame the SCOTUS, we can blame Mitch McConnell, we can blame the Senate for not convicting...we can blame the electorate for choosing Trump over Hillary Clinton.

But if we become a dictatorship...who really gives a **** whom to blame for it.

This may be a terribly self-serving sentiment, but I'm 87...in great health. But I cannot kid myself. However bad it turns out...I will not have to live with it very long.
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 10:14 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, I have no problems with conservative SCOTUS members. I have trouble with SCOTUS justices who regardless of political stripe seem to have no particular love for the Constitution - Thomas and Barrett come directly to mind.

Trump has not had very much luck with his suits regardless of which court he gets into and regardless of whether he appointed them or not.

As long as we can keep our arguments tied to the Constitution and keep it from politics, we are going to keep winning in court.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 10:31 am
@Lash,
You're beginning to sound like a fiscal henny penny.

As long as we pay our debts, as we are known for doing, there will be no problem.

Did you know who buys our debt? The Chinese. They hold more debt AND more US dollars in hard currency reserves than any other nation - except the US.

Who do you think wants the US to fail, besides Disruption J, Trump? It certainly isn't the Chinese or the Russian oligarchs who have huge US currency and property holdings. Why is the dollar the exchange currency of the world? Why do criminals want paid with US dollars?

bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 10:33 am
@blatham,
If the SCOTUS is smart, they'll stick only to the Constitution.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 10:45 am
@bobsal u1553115,
The New Yorker has an excellent piece up on this case and the legal/constitutional questions to be addressed. It is very clearly laid out and is probably the best piece I've read on these matters. Here

Thomas has not recused himself even though this is a clear instance of a conflict of interest. And, certainly, the appearance of one. God know how he justifies this refusal to recuse himself but it's what everyone expected.
0 Replies
 
Bogulum
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 11:56 am
@Frank Apisa,
I know what you mean about not being here to see the carnage. Sometimes when I talk to people about this stuff and climate stuff and it gets intense, my relief comes from the thought that I probably won’t be around to see the worst effects.

But just for the record, if I’m half as sharp and engaged as you when (if) I reach 87 (22 years hence!), I will consider myself much smiled upon by fate.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 11:57 am
It looks like Colorado will lose. An argument which seemed to get support on both sides was that other states would react by accusing opposing candidates of crimes and kicking them off the ballot. Which makes me wonder how political gerrymandering is considered a state matter and states can pretty much do what they like – with certain restrictions – but engaging in or promoting "insurrection", which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as making a candidate ineligible, can be finessed this way.
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 12:01 pm
@Bogulum,
Bogulum wrote:

I know what you mean about not being here to see the carnage. Sometimes when I talk to people about this stuff and climate stuff and it gets intense, my relief comes from the thought that I probably won’t be around to see the worst effects.

But just for the record, if I’m half as sharp and engaged as you when (if) I reach 87 (22 years hence!), I will consider myself much smiled upon by fate.


Thanks, my friend. Considering where you are now, I suspect you will be even sharper than I am now when you are my age.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  7  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 02:13 pm
There are days that I absolutely love Frank, this is one of them.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 07:45 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
It looks like Colorado will lose. An argument which seemed to get support on both sides was that other states would react by accusing opposing candidates of crimes and kicking them off the ballot. Which makes me wonder how political gerrymandering is considered a state matter and states can pretty much do what they like – with certain restrictions – but engaging in or promoting "insurrection", which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as making a candidate ineligible, can be finessed this way.

The questioning appears to suggest Colorado will lose this case but for a rational reason. And if the SC's decision holds what the questioning suggests, it manages to avoid the really politically fraught issues related to insurrection along with potential further damage to the court's reputation. In that sense, it is convenient though I don't think the liberal justices were/will be motivated in that way. But your analogy seems sound to me, hightor. I'm late getting to this news and now I'll see what analyses I can find.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 07:47 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
There are days that I absolutely love Frank, this is one of them.
Did you ever get the chance to meet Frank? He's even better in the minimally wrinkled flesh.
Below viewing threshold (view)
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2024 09:01 pm
Quote:
Haaretz.com@haaretzcom
2h
Everyone but the most die-hard Bibi-ists already know the unavoidable truth: that Netanyahu will forever be remembered in history as Israel's worst prime minister, who led it into the greatest tragedy to ever befall the state
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2024 03:15 am
@Lash,
And Trump said Victor Orban was the president of Turkey.

The only thing Biden got wrong was saying Mexico instead of Egypt, everything else was in context, he was talking about the border between Egypt and Israel, not America's borders.

I personally don't think either should be running, but there you go, it is what it is.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2024 03:21 am
The ex h3ad of MI6 was on the radio talking about Tucker Carlson's arse licking session.

He said if Sunak spoke for half an hour unchallenged saying that because we used to own Calais we have the right to invade France.

That's what Putin did, he said that basically big imperial countries should be able to dictate the borders and international relations of smaller countries.

And the spineless worm "interviewing" him just lethim say that unchallenged.

It wasn't an interview, it was a rant by Putin with nothing at all from Fuckup Carlson.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2024 04:57 am
If Russia Wins

Republican obstructionism could lead to global disaster.


Tom Nichols wrote:
Ukraine is fighting for the lives of its people and its very existence, and it is running out of ammunition. If the United States does not step back in with aid, Russia could eventually win this war.

Despite the twaddle from propagandists in Moscow (and a few academics in the United States), Russia’s war is not about NATO, or borders, or the balance of power. The Russian dictator Vladimir Putin intends to absorb Ukraine into a new Russian empire, and he will eradicate the Ukrainians if they refuse to accept his rule. Europe is in the midst of the largest war on the continent since Nazi panzers rolled from Norway to Greece, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine is by far the most important threat to world peace since the worst days of the Cold War. In a less febrile political era, defeating Russia would be the top priority of every American politician.

The Republicans in Congress, however, remain fixated both on their hatred of Ukraine and on their affection for Russia. Their relentless criticism of assistance to Kyiv has had its intended effect, taking a bite out of the American public’s support for continuing aid, especially as the war has been crowded out by the torrent of more recent news, including Donald Trump’s endless legal troubles and Israel’s campaign in Gaza.

And so it’s time to think more seriously about what might happen if the Republicans succeed in this irresponsible effort to blockade any further assistance to Ukraine. The collapse and dismemberment of a nation of millions is immediately at stake, and that should be enough for any American to be appalled at the GOP’s obstructionism. But the peace of the world itself could rest on what Congress does—or does not do—next.

First, what would it even mean for Russia to “win”? A Russian victory does not require sending Moscow’s tanks into Kyiv, even if that were possible. (The Russians have taken immense losses in manpower and armor, and they would have to fight house-to-house as they approached the capital.) Putin is reckless and a poor strategist, but he is not stupid: He knows that he doesn’t need to plant the Russian flag on the Mother Ukraine statue just yet. He can instead tear Ukraine apart, piece by piece.

The destruction of Ukraine would begin with some kind of cease-fire offered by a Ukrainian leadership that has literally run out of bullets, bombs, and bodies. (The average age of Ukraine’s soldiers is already over 40; there are not that many more men to draft.) The Russians would signal a willingness to deal only with a new Ukrainian regime, perhaps some “government of national salvation” that would exist solely to save whatever would be left of a rump Ukrainian state in the western part of the country while handing everything else over to the Kremlin.

The Russians would then dictate more terms: The United States and NATO would be told to pound sand. Ukraine would have to destroy its weapons and convert its sizable army into a small and weak constabulary force. Areas under Russian control would become, by fiat, parts of Russia. The remaining thing called “Ukraine” would be a demilitarized puppet state, kept from integration of any kind with Europe; in a few years, an internal putsch or a Russian-led coup could produce a new government that would request final union with the Russian Federation. Soon, Ukraine would be part of a new Russian superstate, with Russian forces on NATO’s borders as “peacekeepers” or “border guards,” a ploy the Russians have used in Central Asia since the 1990s.

Imagine the world as Putin (and other dictators, including in China) might see it even a few years from now if Russia wins in 2024: America stood by, paralyzed and shamed, as Ukraine was torn to pieces, as millions of people and many thousands of square miles were added to the Kremlin’s empire, and as U.S. alliances in Europe and then around the world quietly disintegrated—all of which will be even more of a delight in Moscow and Beijing if Americans decide to add the ultimate gift of voting the ignorant and isolationist Trump back into the White House.

The real danger for the U.S. and Europe would begin after Ukraine is crushed, when only NATO would remain as the final barrier to Putin’s dreams of evolving into a new emperor of Eurasia. Putin has never accepted the legitimate existence of Ukraine, but like the unreformed Soviet nostalgist that he is, he has a particular hatred for NATO. After the collapse of Ukraine, he would want to take bolder steps to prove that the Atlantic Alliance is an illusion, a lie promulgated by cowards who would never dare to stop the Kremlin from reclaiming its former Soviet and Russian imperial possessions.

Reckless and emboldened, emotional and facing his own mortality, Putin would be tempted to extend his winning streak and try one last throw of the dice, this time against NATO itself. He would not try to invade all of Europe; he would instead seek to replicate the success of his 2014 capture of Crimea—only this time on NATO territory. Putin might, for example, declare that his commitment to the Russian-speaking peoples of the former Soviet Union compels him to defend Russians in one of the Baltic states. After some Kremlin-sponsored agitation close to the Russian border, Russian forces (including more of the special forces known as “little green men”) might seize a small piece of territory and call it a Russian “safe zone” or “haven”—violating NATO sovereignty while also sticking it to the West for similar attempts many years ago, using similar terms, to protect the Bosnians from Russia’s friends, the Serbs.

The Kremlin would then sit on this piece of NATO territory, daring America and Europe to respond, in order to prove that NATO lacks the courage to fight for its members, and that whatever the strength of the alliance between, say, Washington and London, no one is going to die—or risk nuclear war—for some town in Estonia.

Should Putin actually do any of this, however, he would be making a drastic mistake. Dictators continually misunderstand democracies, believing them to be weak and unwilling to fight. Democracies, including the United States, do hate to fight—until roused to action. Republicans might soon succeed in forcing the United States to abandon Ukraine, but if fighting breaks out in Europe between Russia and America’s closest allies—old and new—no one, not even a President Trump, who has expressed his hostility to NATO and professed his admiration for Putin, is going to be able to keep the United States out of the battle, not least because U.S. forces will inevitably be among NATO’s casualties.

And at that point, anything could happen.

The world, should Russia win, will face remarkable new dangers—and for what? Because in 2024 some astonishingly venal and ambitious politicians wanted to hedge their bets and kiss Trump’s ring one more time? Perhaps enough Republicans will come to their senses in time to avert these possible outcomes. If they do not, future historians—that is, if anyone is left to record what happened—will be perplexed at how a small coterie of American politicians were so willing to trade the safety of the planet for a few more years of power.

atlantic
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2024 05:38 am
Putin, in rambling interview, barely lets Tucker Carlson get a word in

Francesca Ebel wrote:
Russian President Vladimir Putin spent the first 30 minutes of his two-hour interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson giving a revisionist historical tirade on the founding myths of Russia and Ukraine, the breakup of the Soviet Union and NATO expansionism.

From there, admonishing Carlson when he interrupted, Putin pontificated on everything from the war in Ukraine and relations with the United States, the case of imprisoned American reporter Evan Gershkovich, and even on artificial intelligence.

By the end of the conversation, it was clear that Putin had no intention of ending his brutal war against Ukraine. But Carlson, who was sacked from Fox last year, seemed ready to surrender. Putin offered to keep talking. Carlson, evidently exhausted by the Russian leader’s long-winded conspiracy theories and grievances against the West, thanked him and called it quits — far short of the media coup that he had been touting.

Analysts said Putin’s choice to talk to Carlson was based partly on his perceived sympathy — the former Fox host has repeatedly dismissed criticism of Putin over the years — and the opportunity to appeal to the more MAGA reaches of the Republican Party during an election year. That could boost Donald Trump’s chances of reelection and convince Republicans to continue to block U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
https://archive.is/vtKnF/0e20241854a0ea04fc8b3d44934737aa51fd3977.webp
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson spent most of his two-hour interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin in silence or looking confounded.

Carlson spent most of the interview in silence, or looking confounded.
He did not ask a single question about Russia’s attacks on civilian areas or critical infrastructure in Ukraine, which have killed thousands. There was no mention of the war crime allegations facing the Russian leader or the forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Absent too were questions on Russia’s sweeping political crackdowns on Putin’s critics or the long jail sentences meted out to ordinary Russians staging antiwar protests.

Instead, Carlson posed increasingly esoteric questions — including whether any world leader could be a true Christian — and at times appeared to goad Putin into alleging a U.S. deep state and promote other conspiracy theories.
At several moments, when Carlson tried to interject, he was chastised by the president.

“I’ll tell you, I’m coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explains many things,” said Putin in a condescending tone.
“It’s not boring. [I’m] just not sure how it’s relevant,” said Carlson. Putin responded that he was “gratified” and appreciated that.

[ The big problem with Tucker Carlson’s hyped Putin interview ]

Putin’s domination of the interview with Carlson was a stark contrast with a grilling that the Russian leader received from Austrian news anchor Armin Wolf, who won acclaim in 2018 by repeatedly challenging him and putting him on the defensive.

Carlson himself appeared to acknowledge the challenges of interviewing an increasingly reclusive autocrat with a 24-year history of dodging questions and dominating interviews.

Ruminating on the interview afterward in a gilded antechamber at the Kremlin palace, Carlson said that the start of the interview had taken him by surprise, with “an extremely detailed history going back to the 9th century of the formation of Russia.”

“I’m not exactly sure what I thought of the interview. … It’s going to take me a year to decide what that was,” said Carlson in a video published on his website. “Putin is not someone who does a lot of interviews. He is not good at explaining himself. … But he’s clearly spending a lot of time in a world where he doesn’t have to explain himself.”

Carlson said he felt that Putin had not presented his case coherently, but sensed that the Russian leader was “wounded” by the rejection of the West.
During the long and rambling course of the interview, the Russian leader recycled justifications he has made for the invasion of Ukraine, including the “denazification” of the country.

“If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so. But not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology,” said Putin, adding that Ukraine was a satellite state of the United States.

The president also claimed that Moscow withdrew its troops from Kyiv in 2022 as part of a peace deal. In April 2022, Kyiv pushed back invading Russian troops from the capital.

Putin at one point warned the West sternly against sending its own troops to fight in Ukraine, and then wondered why the United States was meddling in the conflict rather than attending to its own problems. And he said Washington should be willing to reach a deal with Russia to end the war (ignoring the obvious fact that Kyiv would not go along.)

“Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of a very serious global conflict — this is obvious,” Putin said.

“Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory. Don’t you have anything better to do? You have issues on the border. Issues with migration, issues with the national debt. More than $33 trillion. You have nothing better to do? So you should fight in Ukraine? Wouldn’t it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an agreement?
“Realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end,” Putin said, such an agreement would be “a return to common sense.”

In some of his most direct comments on the case, Putin said that Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who was detained while on a reporting trip in Yekaterinburg last year, was arrested because he was “working for the U.S. intelligence services.”

Putin claimed that Gershkovich, who has been charged with espionage and has been in jail since March last year — was “caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information.”

Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal and the White House vehemently deny the charges against him.

“Evan is a journalist, and journalism is not a crime. Any portrayal to the contrary is total fiction,” the Journal said in a statement Thursday. “Evan was unjustly arrested and has been wrongfully detained by Russia for nearly a year for doing his job, and we continue to demand his immediate release.”

Late last year, the State Department said that the Kremlin had rejected a “significant offer” that would have seen the release of Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, a former U.S. Marine also incarcerated in Russia.

But during the interview with Carlson, Putin said that he believed an agreement on an exchange was possible and that he hoped Gershkovich would return home, but claimed there had been “many gestures of goodwill” and that Moscow had “run out of them.”

wp
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 02:41:13