Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The President Defends Airstrike ,

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The President Defends Airstrike ,

    Insists it was not an attempt to influence impeachment,
    read the article here,
    https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stor...linton.denial/


    https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stor...ranscript.html
    Last edited by Urban hermit; 08 Jan 20, 22:29.
    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

  • #2
    No takers?
    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

    Comment


    • #3
      Shifting the propaganda back to impeachment is to be expected
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        Shifting the propaganda back to impeachment is to be expected
        But isn't it interesting how history repeats itself?
        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

          But isn't it interesting how history repeats itself?
          I was not in favor of the Clinton impeachment and I'm not in favor of the Trump impeachment. In neither case do I think the threat of impeachment played any role in their actions in Iraq.

          You should not impeach a president unless there is a high probability that he will be removed from office. If you do you risk minimizing the seriousness in which impeachment should be understood. The political fall out of a failed impeachment does not just effect one party but cheapens the entire political process.

          In general I'm non partisan, neither Republican or Democrat, that said I'm a registered Democrat. Much like Victor Davis Hansen it is a family tradition and nothing more. Until recently I voted for Democrats and Republicans. That has changed as the Republicans have become more populace and the Democrats more socialist.

          I didn't feel that the Republicans were acting in my best interest when they impeached Clinton and I don't feel the Democrats acted in my best interest in impeaching Trump. That said I'm not as unhappy with the Trump impeachment as some may assume. Impeachment as I said earlier is unavoidably a political action. Trump is an existential threat to the socialist, social justice, movement in the Democratic party. A party that represents 50 percent of the population. Assuming that it is just about the acquisition of power is a dangerous and naive position. Many people feel that moving towards a more socialist state is a moral position. I blame that feeling on a misunderstanding of the nature of morality, public vs private morality being two different animals, but I don't doubt the sincerity of the people involved in the social justice movement.

          Saying that impeachment should not be political reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of constitutional representative government. The political parties represent the broad wishes of the population. The system as I see is working well. The house is acting on the popular wishes of the majority as best any party can represent such in the every shifting stream of public opinion. The sober and judicious senate, which never should have been directly elected, is representing not the national majority but the best interests of the states and will reject impeachment. That is how the system should work.

          I understand that the Founders may have desired that impeachment be reserved for more serious threats to the Republic than lying about sexual impropriety or something as nebulous as nationalism vs globalist socialism but that is not the way things turned out. The divide within the population is now so great that the issues can probably only be resolved by a constitutional convention or another civil war. I find neither particularly appealing. That is why impeachment in this case is a reasonable compromise. The socialists get their pound of flesh without destroying the republic for the time being.

          The framers of the Constitution were undoubtedly aware of where the French were headed although the Constitution was ratified a year before the French Revolution began. The radical kind of egalitarianism that socialism represents and the dangers posed to the social fabric by the "death of God" are not new problems. The Constitution was specifically designed to prevent events like the French Revolution from taking place by limiting the "will of the people".

          Because of the nature of "democratic socialism" it is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution. Socialism cannot exist outside of an authoritarian form of government. It is not just that the government must be powerful enough to enforce radical redistribution but it must be powerful enough to suppress regional interests. While state rights played a role in the continuation of slavery and the Civil War the Constitution is specifically set up to distribute political power to the states by suppressing majority rule. In effect states rights are an addition to the checks and balances of the three branches of government.

          When I hear the various proposals coming out of the Democratic party intended to extend social justice they can only be described as treasonous. Where treason is defined as failure to uphold the oath of office to defend the constitution. Their objectives can only be constitutional if the the constitution is itself changed. That puts the Republicans on the right side of many debates. If they want to proceed with proposals such as making it impossible to form a militia with military weapons then they need to amend the constitution not ignore it. To fundamentally misread the clear language of the constitution for reasons practical or politically is in my opinion treason. That does not mean I want to hang the socialists, the anti gun or any of the other aberrant members of the Congress. It does however put the current impeachment in a different light.

          The problem is that 50 percent of the people must want to do away with the constitution. It cannot simply be a matter of misunderstanding. They may in the future want to overthrow the government but it seems at the moment they are content to simply ignore the constitution. We cannot try and convict 50 percent of the population on charges of treason. We can not even prove that their desires are treasonous because language has been so degraded by postmodernism and intersectionality.

          There is an evident decline in the level of general intelligence since the eighteenth century that education can no longer override. The mob is no longer irrational because it is a mob but because the individuals in the mob are intellectually incapable of understanding the plain language of the constitution. I would suggest that AOC is an example. The impeachment of Trump is just one more aspect of the bread and circus that keeps the mob at bay. In this light I can see no reason to not proceed as we are.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
              Insists it was not an attempt to influence impeachment,
              read the article here,
              https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stor...linton.denial/


              https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stor...ranscript.html
              Of course Trump defends the airstrike. When has he ever admitted an error no matter what the subject?

              Comment


              • #8
                I knew right away that his critics would insist that it was a Monica Missile, but I didn't think it would take this long.
                Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                Comment


                • #9
                  But I would be much, much harsher and sterner : what we see in the US and in Europe (where everything is already going farther and faster, as Europe has a tradition of government intervention) is the bankruptcy of the model of society created after WWII ,a model of society founded on and characterised by always more and bigger government interventions and thus less freedom for the people .
                  Those who have created this society ( neo-marxists, liberals, neo-conservatives ) know that their end is nearing ,but desperatedly try to save their neck by imposing a dictatorship .
                  US also are in this situation : it was a Democrat who said that children belong to the state, not to their parents . It were two democrats who said that the mission of the potus was to shape the future of the American children, it was a neo con Republican,who deserted to the Democrats who said that the white working communities ( better known as Deplorables ) should disappear and should be replaced by human machines from the Third World ,because they (Deplorables ) were rebelling against their masters .
                  In Germany a socialist director of the BfV (FBI ) said that any criticism of the Islam was illegal . A D A for Eastern Tennessee said the same .
                  It was in Britain that the police intervened with helicopters to stop a party that was given for the anniversary of the death of Bin Laden . It was also in Britain where the government took away the adopted children from people because they had another political opinion than the government .
                  It was in Scotland where the police introduced the hijab as a part of the uniform to have more female Muslim agents .
                  Everywhere in Europe, people are revolting,and the governments are preparing the plans to crush them .
                  If Trump is not reelected, US will become another Sweden.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A lot of people in the US are convinced that the constitution will protect their liberties.This is not so : it takes only 5 persons (majority of Scotus ) to transform US in a marxist dictatorship . The only thing that can defend someone's freedom is a gun : that's why in Europe and in the US the Liberals want to take away people's weapons .If Hillary was potus, there would be a marxist/liberal Scotus and people's fundamental rights would be gone .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post

                      Of course Trump defends the airstrike. When has he ever admitted an error no matter what the subject?
                      So you didn't read the articles,
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X