Politics

[wesheltonj]

View attachment 419559

SOP in DC, which is why Trump was hated by both R’s and D’s.

 

[nztimb]

The sequence is Pres, Vice Pres, Speaker, But in order for the Speaker to become pres by attrition would be if both the P & VP were out of office and no new VP had been appointed. The process has been the P was removed from office, the VP became P & the new P appointed a VP (as with JFK & LBJ); or the VP was removed and the P appointed a new VP (as with Nixon, Agnew & Ford). So in order for pelosi to become pres both P & VP would need to be removed from office and have it done so quickly that successors were not appointed. I would guess that the Bidet won't complete his term, which would make Ms Horrible the Pres. The first order of business would be to appoint a new VP and that is where the real selection would be known because that person would be the candidate for Pres in 2024 unless Ms Horrible could manage to get a complete overhaul of her self.

I read an interesting piece the other day indicating that if the P resigns or is gone via 25th ammendment then the vp if she steps up loses the tie breaker vote so it would make passing anything difficult so the artical said they cant afford for the P to go. NOT MY WORDS so leave any speculation or rebuttal to those in the know

 

[Cervus elaphus]

The big shots running the Demo party must have a real quandary. They had hoped that ole Joe could have held out for at least a year to give some semblance of value to his presidency and that Ms Horrible would make a better impression than she has so that she could at least appear to be competent. But now the whole deal is crashing in flames. My suspicion is that they are now seeking to find the candidate that could actually win an election for president- when found, ole Joe will be given the boot, Horrible will become president and she will select as vice president the person that the big shots would nominate to run for president in 2024. That is, provided the US still has elections in 2024.

Having a fair idea of how the devious democrats think (well the Obama shadow govt anyway), if Joe goes, under the 25th or something else, I suspect they will find a way to remove Harris as well, because that makes the speaker of the house the President. Hello Prez Pelosi and VP Butthurtgigg

 

[sgt_zim]

I watched Chuck Todd and four others tear Biden apart and even questioning his competency this morning. It doesn't feel right with all of these liberals turning on a liberal president.

When leftists go after their own, they get vicious beyond imagining. Consider the fate of Leon Trotsky after he fell out of favor with Stalin.

 

[Saul]

This is not a right or left issue. This is the corporate press going after the President for ending their gravy train war.

 

[NE 7x57]

I don't think the criticism coming to the President has to do with ending the war, it has to do with the complete mess his administration has made of the withdrawal. There was a competent way to do this and then there is the Biden way.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

 

[Tundra Tiger]

 

[Randy F]

The perceived great presidents of the USA are honored by having their faces carved into the granite cliffs of Mt. Rushmore.

Biden seems to have fast-tracked himself into having his likeness finger painted by a kindergartner on the sandstone walls of Mt. Pisspoor.

GEEZ what a train wreck!

 

[jpr9954]

 

[Saul]

I don't think the criticism coming to the President has to do with ending the war, it has to do with the complete mess his administration has made of the withdrawal. There was a competent way to do this and then there is the Biden way.

I am sure things could have been handled better, but the end result would mostly have been the same regardless of who is President since the Afghan government was mostly likely complicit in the Taliban takeover. If we were to start a mass evacuation prior to beginning the troop withdrawal, it very well may have just emboldened the Taliban to take over even sooner. Conflict with the Taliban during the withdrawal would not make sense so once the Taliban decided to take the country, there is practically nothing to be done other than continue an orderly exit. A bad situation all round, but I am not sure there was ever a possibility of a good outcome so we might as well rip off the bandage.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I am sure things could have been handled better, but the end result would mostly have been the same regardless of who is President since the Afghan government was mostly likely complicit in the Taliban takeover. If we were to start a mass evacuation prior to beginning the troop withdrawal, it very well may have just emboldened the Taliban to take over even sooner. Conflict with the Taliban during the withdrawal would not make sense so once the Taliban decided to take the country, there is practically nothing to be done other than continue an orderly exit. A bad situation all round, but I am not sure there was ever a possibility of a good outcome so we might as well rip off the bandage.

We will just have to disagree on this. I'm sure the 10k Americans and 80k afghans that help us don't feel this way.

They should have never gave up Bagram Airforce base. Even for a longer term strategy of focusing on China and Iran, it is silly to give it up.

 

[Red Leg]

I am sure things could have been handled better, but the end result would mostly have been the same regardless of who is President since the Afghan government was mostly likely complicit in the Taliban takeover. If we were to start a mass evacuation prior to beginning the troop withdrawal, it very well may have just emboldened the Taliban to take over even sooner. Conflict with the Taliban during the withdrawal would not make sense so once the Taliban decided to take the country, there is practically nothing to be done other than continue an orderly exit. A bad situation all round, but I am not sure there was ever a possibility of a good outcome so we might as well rip off the bandage.

That is absolute nonsense.

As long as Bagram was open and manned, we maintained the requisite firepower to blunt any offensive directed at Kabul. It is the antithesis of sound military doctrine, to withdraw the covering force before non-combatants were safely evacuated. Milley and Austin know this and should have resigned rather than sign on to this catastrophe. I promise you they have heard this in spades from their peers, colleagues, and mentors.

And watching the Taliban merrily executing former members of the Kabul government and military, I reject the notion they were complicit. What those institutions did do was collapse when their only ally that mattered ran away in the night.

I frankly had assumed that someone else was running our government. But based on what I am now seeing and hearing, this senile delusional old man really is apparently calling the shots. That is truly terrifying.

I frankly think we should have stayed with minimum manning (3500-5000) indefinitely. It put a huge crimp in both ISIS and Al Queida resurgence, stabilized Kabul and the central Afghan government, and gave us a outstanding intel position in central Asia. We haven't lost a serviceman in nearly two-years and the effort was far far less than our enduring multi-generational commitment to Europe, Japan, and south Korea (which I also support). Chicago would have been a more dangerous assignment. And yes, like many political-military foreign policy issues, I think Trump has this wrong as well.

But we didn't. We have ceded the initiative to the Taliban, and they will humiliate us on the world stage. Shame on us as a nation if we leave a single American behind who is desperately trying to escape these barbarians.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

 

[lwaters]

Right now would be a good time to get the Taliban leaders. The Russians got run out of Afghanistan I didn't think we would last either unless we committed genocide.

 

[Vashper]

Right now would be a good time to get the Taliban leaders. The Russians got run out of Afghanistan I didn't think we would last either unless we committed genocide.

Still, a small clarification. Russian troops left Afghanistan when the task was completed, leaving there a combat-ready army and a friendly government that even survived the USSR itself. So it is not quite right to draw conclusions "by analogy".
Nevertheless, of course, it is better to establish and even develop certain relationships. The same applies, by the way, to others with whom there were conflicts.

 

[mark-hunter]

@Vashper
I am very much ignorant about soviet afghan war, it started when I went to primary school.
So, I would like to ask, what is now Soviet, or now Russian, historic look on Afghan war?
Do they see it as a victory, or defeat, or something else?

 

[Saul]

We will just have to disagree on this. I'm sure the 10k Americans and 80k afghans that help us don't feel this way.

They should have never gave up Bagram Airforce base. Even for a longer term strategy of focusing on China and Iran, it is silly to give it up.

That is absolute nonsense.

As long as Bagram was open and manned, we maintained the requisite firepower to blunt any offensive directed at Kabul. It is the antithesis of sound military doctrine, to withdraw the covering force before non-combatants were safely evacuated. Milley and Austin know this and should have resigned rather than sign on to this catastrophe. I promise you they have heard this in spades from their peers, colleagues, and mentors.

And watching the Taliban merrily executing former members of the Kabul government and military, I reject the notion they were complicit. What those institutions did do was collapse when their only ally that mattered ran away in the night.

I frankly had assumed that someone else was running our government. But based on what I am now seeing and hearing, this senile delusional old man really is apparently calling the shots. That is truly terrifying.

I frankly think we should have stayed with minimum manning (3500-5000) indefinitely. It put a huge crimp in both ISIS and Al Queida resurgence, stabilized Kabul and the central Afghan government, and gave us a outstanding intel position in central Asia. We haven't lost a serviceman in nearly two-years and the effort was far far less than our enduring multi-generational commitment to Europe, Japan, and south Korea (which I also support). Chicago would have been a more dangerous assignment. And yes, like many political-military foreign policy issues, I think Trump has this wrong as well.

But we didn't. We have ceded the initiative to the Taliban, and they will humiliate us on the world stage. Shame on us as a nation if we leave a single American behind who is desperately trying to escape these barbarians.

I have no military experience so I will trust you all on this. I assume that these details have been heavily considered and debated by our military leaders. Whether or not they came to the right decision, I am sure they had their reasons for doing what they did and most likely access to information that we are not privy to. That is not to say that things should not have been done differently, just that I neither have the military experience nor all of the information available to truly know just how right or wrong they got it.

With regard to continued occupation, that is where I will have to disagree. While there are obvious strategic advantages to keeping a military presence in certain areas, we simply cannot afford to keep military forces all over the world. Frankly, I am not too thrilled about even having a standing army, at least at its current size, if not for the imminent threat posed by China. History has not been kind to empires that have spread their military forces into foreign lands with hostile cultures and accrued crippling debt in the process.

 

[Red Leg]

I have no military experience so I will trust you all on this. I assume that these details have been heavily considered and debated by our military leaders. Whether or not they came to the right decision, I am sure they had their reasons for doing what they did and most likely access to information that we are not privy to. That is not to say that things should not have been done differently, just that I neither have the military experience nor all of the information available to truly know just how right or wrong they got it.

With regard to continued occupation, that is where I will have to disagree. While there are obvious strategic advantages to keeping a military presence in certain areas, we simply cannot afford to keep military forces all over the world. Frankly, I am not too thrilled about even having a standing army, at least at its current size, if not for the imminent threat posed by China. History has not been kind to empires that have spread their military forces into foreign lands with hostile cultures and accrued crippling debt in the process.

It doesn't work that way.

In our system the commander in chief is the ultimate "military leader." His name is Joe Biden. The Army and DOD recommended a far different plan. It was rejected by the senile old man in the White House. That, by the way, is not an opinion. Both Milley and Austin should have resigned. Today, the WH announced it would abide by the 31 August deadline. It will take a minimum of 72 hours to withdraw all the military forces. You are smart fellow. Do the math on how much longer repatriation flights will continue.

Uncomfortable with a standing army. That may be the most singularly naïve thing I have read outside AOC's twitter account. You are a citizen of a world-wide economic empire. You can't defend such an empire on the docks of NY. It has to be defended on the boundaries of that empire. And I would argue our economic condition, so dependent upon our access to markets, is worth that expense and effort.

That doesn't mean other Commanders in Chief haven't made equally foolish choices. The invasion of Iraq, to my mind, was one.

But this senile old man has made a decision that will leave some number of Americans and our allies behind. Shame on him and anyone who thinks that is a good idea.

 

[Saul]

It doesn't work that way.

In our system the commander in chief is the ultimate "military leader." His name is Joe Biden. The Army and DOD recommended a far different plan. It was rejected by the senile old man in the White House. That, by the way, is not an opinion. Both Milley and Austin should have resigned. Today, the WH announced it would abide by the 31 August deadline. It will take a minimum of 72 hours to withdraw all the military forces. You are smart fellow. Do the math on how much longer repatriation flights will continue.

Uncomfortable with a standing army. That may be the most singularly naïve thing I have read outside AOC's twitter account. You are a citizen of a world-wide economic empire. You can't defend such an empire on the docks of NY. It has to be defended on the boundaries of that empire. And I would argue our economic condition, so dependent upon our access to markets, is worth that expense and effort.

That doesn't mean other Commanders in Chief haven't made equally foolish choices. The invasion of Iraq, to my mind, was one.

But this senile old man has made a decision that will leave some number of Americans and our allies behind. Shame on him and anyone who thinks that is a good idea.

I will need to read more on the situation since I still feel like I am missing out on important information, and I do not trust the corporate press to impartially cover the situation. Leaving Americans behind is simply unacceptable, though I do wonder if any have some share of the blame for staying as long as they have. I am sure there is an element of hubris with regard to what we believe are military is capable of doing that has contributed to this situation.

While I am not thrilled with a standing army, at least at its current size, I understand that in our current world we cannot go back without losing our global standing. However, that does not mean we should not be continuously evaluating the strategic value and financial burden of our military positioning. I do not believe in nation-building in the Middle East and I am not sure that our resources could not be better spent either at home or more aggressively realigning our military forces to counter China.