Political Discussion Thread

Even allowing for that, I’d prefer the dismantalling occur under an administration whose diplomatic acumen extends beyond tweeting about the size of our nuclear arsenal.

To me, it seems that the US is powerful enough to take an equal seat at the table with the little guys in an organization whose powers are very limited and still exert more than adequate influence around the world as needed to protect our interests.

Yes, this means accomodating backward regimes and recognizing that our ability to dictate their affairs without the barrel of a gun to do so is limited, but it keeps us talking at least, and gives us a platform to try and influence them.

Could the organization be better run? Undoubtedly. But wouldn’t the US be better served trying to reinvigorate an existing framework rather than trying to set up unilateral treaties with hundreds of countries at the same time the State Department is being gutted?

This is bad news, the world is more interconnected than ever and the apparent intent of this administration to withdraw from that doesn’t bode well for our position going forward.

And for the record, yes, I think that us being in the corner of countries who aren’t in the position to defend themselves from other superpowers is a good thing.

3 Likes

I think at this point, the UN has been twisted so that it is irreparable. However, if you would like to see the UN changed, why so seemingly adamant that it is bad that the US demands it change, or have its funding cut?

I like the idea of defending the weak - I just don’t think their security is worth sacrificing ours.

Let’s say that tomorrow, the Russians invade Lithuania and Trump invokes NATO’s Article V. Would you say “America - ■■■■ yeah”? Let’s go defend Lithuania! I mean, I like Lithuanians and all, but I’m not about our people dying to defend their country. Not sure it’s in our national interest.

It’s more the way the current administration is going about trying to effect the change that bothers me.
By its nature the body is international and operates by consensus, choosing to do all this after a rebuke from the global community in the Jerusalem issue makes it look spiteful and childish.

American military deterrence is in our interest though. Being prepared to honor our treaty obligations, and the existence of those treaties leads to more stability and contributes to our properity.

A Russian invasion of Lithuania would destabilize Europe, with whom we do quite a bit of trade, and would thus negatively affect us.

Or I suppose we could appease them, surely they’d stop there

3 Likes

I don’t disagree with your critique of the current US administration - hence my Trumpian shadow reference earlier. But I do disagree that the Orange One is a reason to not act on the UN.

Hell yes! I agree with all of this. Mine is more of a question of WHO we are aligning ourselves with and against.

Ha, maybe. But probably not. I imagine they’d gobble up the other Baltic countries, maybe a bit of Ukraine and Georgia - oh wait.

And you’re probably right about what a Russian invasion of Lithuania would do Europe and trade, and our financial bottom-line. It’s just that I’m not willing to send Americans to die for it.

Indeed.

And when it comes down to it the NATO pact is voluntary; America could and quite possibly would let Lithuanians die if war actually happened. Putin et al can’t be sure of that, though, which is of course why it exists - not to force other countries to help the unprotected when they need it, but to provide deterrence which might influence aggressors’ decisions.

Given that a stable democratic Europe clearly is in American interests, even if the US has no desire to follow through on its professed post-ww2 moral values over this, maintaining this deterrence isn’t a hard geopolitical calculation to make, hence it’s been maintained until this peculiarly-coifed bull entered our international china shop.

Incidentally, I feel the time is ripe for a Donald Trump emoticon. It would help me deal emotionally with his hair

1 Like

Post deleted as I was repeating myself instead of contributing to the topic. :smiley:

The federal government will destroy you if you cross them - even if they have to lie, fabricate and withhold evidence to do it.

I haven’t seen that much USA Today since vaguely getting into politics - are they usually this Libertarian/Right leaning?

The bottom half of the article in particular has nothing to do with the case and just dredges up old potential/actual fuckups that aren’t related at all.

Sorry to pivot on Bundy, but I was just curious.

In general they’re minimally biased, at least when it comes to the news; that is an opinion piece though.

1 Like

Good to know. Any time I see Ruby Ridge and Waco near each other in one piece about government interference… it gives me pause.

As to the actual topic, I may post on it later or another day. I’m drinking today and trying to not remember how much I hate the anarchist militia type, lest I ramble.

1 Like

And not to change topics again, but I was just talking with someone else and I feel the need to point out how insane my state can be.

Lookit the ■■■■■■■ bowl they did the drawing in. Nevermind we just 50/50’d a goddamn delegate race, but of course, we have to do it in the most tacky way possible with the most nerdy looking ■■■■■■■■■■■■ peeling the name out of his mom’s craft project.

Oh well. Let’s see how this ■■■■ goes.

Nah. Their opinion writers are all over the place, politically. Although I find it … interesting … that an article damning federal government malfeasance is considered right wing - do Democrats not care about that, too?

I think they’re related in the context of “Hey guys! Here’s how much the government can ■■■■ yo life up,” and then lie about it, withhold evidence during trial from the defense, and if need be, just make some ■■■■ up.

Nah, it’s just that most of the guys that like to dress up in camo and do pretend runs at senators tend to be right wing and tend to bring up Waco and Ruby Ridge a lot. I’ll say that the latter of the two was handled pretty shittily and probably shouldn’t have happened, but there are reasons why it happened at the time. The fact that the guy just glazes by “white seperatist” like its totes cool.

Yeah I may comment more on this mindset later, but not tonight. Tonight is for drunk fun, not for rambling about hate.

The FBI learnt a lot from these. The Montana Freemen standoff was handled much better.

Yes, I suppose they have a bit of catching up to do with lefties who actually shoot Senators and Congressmen.

I didn’t take it like that - I took it as the fact that he’s a white separatist is less relevant to the thrust of the article.

I like alcohol!

The mindset is pretty ■■■■■■■ awful, and just about the most anti-American thing a law enforcement officer - sworn to uphold the Constitution, mind you - can do. Well, I mean, aside from shooting and killing innocent people posing no threat at the time they were shot and killed, I mean.

Which, to be honest, isn’t saying much. Another way to put it is, “The FBI realized that it’s poor form to toss pyrotechnic grenades into a house occupied with nutty cultists, and their children, setting the entire thing ablaze and killing - with fire! - 80 men, women, and children. They have also learned that it’s very bad publicity to shoot and kill a white separatist’s son. Even though he’s a white separatist, in general that’s not a very good reason to shoot someone’s child.”

At least you seem to be right - the Feds do tend to react less insanely violent to confrontations nowadays. I was convinced that the BLM and the Bundy people were gonna shoot the ■■■■ out of each other during that standoff - would seem cooler heads prevailed.

1 Like

Actually, ■■■■ this ■■■■. Politics are stupid and juvenile - I wanna hear about your drunken fun!

Whatcha got going on tonight?

2 Likes

Getting drunk and hanging with people online for the first time in a long time because of semi decent internet.

3 Likes

I’m not really sure I understand where you’re going with these points overall (but am intrigued).

I think that’s my main confusion with the article too. I’m sceptical about taking very different issues in law enforcement practice (its methods when prosecuting right wing militias, its decisions regarding firepower in two standoffs, and its specific handling of two exceptional political cases - Trump and Clinton - both of which have given rise to a contradictory slew of different impropriety allegations against the FBI) and jamming them together as evidence of general federal tyranny or even overbearance.

I’m not saying these disparate situations aren’t connected, but I don’t think that article makes anything close to a convincing case for that, without which it reads like, well, as Arsonist says, a dredging up of unrelated fuckups.

Leaving that aside, I’m just not sure (but am interested) in what the author actually wants to change or happen. Clearly something. He wants Trump to ‘rein in renegade federal prosecutors’. And says that ‘the feds need to be leashed’. What does that mean? I assume it’s not get rid of the FBI entirely, but presumably some action that would rectify all the different cases he’s cited?

I’m not expecting a newspaper columnist to do the President’s job but some concept of what the change he’s calling for is beyond vague rein/leash metaphors would support his argument a bit more. Detailing the changes he favours in the FBI system would also help his case that their problems are actually systemic.

Late night politics is the result of me spending a Friday night NOT drinking (damn New Years resolutions…) so feel free to leave these overly musings to themselves, heh.

1 Like

I watched the Stephen Miller interview on CNN and all I have to say is that I find it absolutely disgusting that CNN would broadcast Stephen Miller sucking trumps ■■■■ on television

1 Like

Well, I’m going to guess the changes the author would like to see would be: for the feds to stop withholding evidence from defense teams, stop the excessive force (fire, shooting children, grinding people’s faces into the gravel, etc.) and maybe discontinue the politicization of federal law enforcement. At least, that’s what I took away from it all.

No offense, but that might be the world’s worst resolution. :slight_smile:

EDIT:

I suppose if you’re asking for ways the feds can change their org so that the above (killing children with fire, et al), I’m not sure that there’s a whole lot that really needs to be said about it, other than they should try upholding their oaths to the Constitution. Those that don’t probably shouldn’t be in the business of law enforcement to begin with. Changes that need to be made would include firing those that do not uphold the Constitution, and prosecuting those that violate civil liberties. However, who’s gonna do that? What, are we expecting the federal government to prosecute the federal government? I’m sure that’ll work out juuuuuust fine. (For the feds.)

1 Like