@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
This is why you are an adult in the room. Even if you like to pick on the local retards.
Trump is a Boob @Swaye . But where do his transgressions rank in the History of the Republic? I can think of plenty worse by past Presidents who never came close to losing their jobs.
"This is a country that backed away from removing Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and that avoided the first successful impeachment of a sitting president because of Richard Nixon’s resignation. A Senate vote to remove Trump would effectively declare that Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president, and other efforts to hold up congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine, was the worst decision of any president in American history, and the only one that warranted this ultimate punishment."
Stare decisis. It doesn't technically apply to these proceedings; for as many have pointed out, this is political, not legal. That said, it still matters as a fundamental indicator of fairness and intellectual honesty in how we? manage important processes.
Impeachment is very much political and not criminal. Nixon lost in the court of public opinion which is why he had to resign. In this current era of 50/50 scorched Earth polarization, something equivalent to quid pro quo badgering of a foreign leader ain't enough to get it done. I think Clinton's perjury is probably morally equivalent to Trump's phone call and yet the Dems told us we needed to Moveon.Org because of 60% approval ratings.
Nixon only lost in the court of public opinion once the tapes were released and his own words impugned him. Holding up tax payer appropriated funds to further his own personal political goals is far worse than watergate or blowjobgate BUT the dems and the public are still lacking a "tape" of Trump explicitly directing the scheme. Would Mulvaney or Bolton provide that smoking gun? Maybe. Without that though this won't go anywhere.
Perhaps.
People forget that Nixon's worst "impeachable" offense came in days leading up to the 1968 election. And we only new about it because LBJ was spying on Nixon.
We? the public only learned about the evidence of Nixon's overtures to Thieu after he was gone...again lacked the "smoking gun".
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
This is why you are an adult in the room. Even if you like to pick on the local retards.
Hence why @creepycoug is my consigliere . His personal loyalty to me based on row boat respeck can never be doubted.
If any of you guy's gets in my way, just one call to Creep and problem solved.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
This is why you are an adult in the room. Even if you like to pick on the local retards.
Hence why @creepycoug is my consigliere . His personal loyalty to me based on row boat respeck can never be doubted.
If any of you guy's gets in my way, just one call to Creep and problem solved.
Is there a person alive who watched Godfather who didn't say, "fuck yeah!" upon watch the horse head scene? That pompous ass Holywood director ... all because Johnny moved in on his piece of ass? Be a man!
Trump is a Boob @Swaye . But where do his transgressions rank in the History of the Republic? I can think of plenty worse by past Presidents who never came close to losing their jobs.
"This is a country that backed away from removing Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and that avoided the first successful impeachment of a sitting president because of Richard Nixon’s resignation. A Senate vote to remove Trump would effectively declare that Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president, and other efforts to hold up congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine, was the worst decision of any president in American history, and the only one that warranted this ultimate punishment."
Stare decisis. It doesn't technically apply to these proceedings; for as many have pointed out, this is political, not legal. That said, it still matters as a fundamental indicator of fairness and intellectual honesty in how we? manage important processes.
Impeachment is very much political and not criminal. Nixon lost in the court of public opinion which is why he had to resign. In this current era of 50/50 scorched Earth polarization, something equivalent to quid pro quo badgering of a foreign leader ain't enough to get it done. I think Clinton's perjury is probably morally equivalent to Trump's phone call and yet the Dems told us we needed to Moveon.Org because of 60% approval ratings.
Nixon only lost in the court of public opinion once the tapes were released and his own words impugned him. Holding up tax payer appropriated funds to further his own personal political goals is far worse than watergate or blowjobgate BUT the dems and the public are still lacking a "tape" of Trump explicitly directing the scheme. Would Mulvaney or Bolton provide that smoking gun? Maybe. Without that though this won't go anywhere.
Perhaps.
People forget that Nixon's worst "impeachable" offense came in days leading up to the 1968 election. And we only new about it because LBJ was spying on Nixon.
We? the public only learned about the evidence of Nixon's overtures to Thieu after he was gone...again lacked the "smoking gun".
Point being, numerous POTUS have broken the rules BIGLY and never got caught or NOC.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
This is why you are an adult in the room. Even if you like to pick on the local retards.
Picking on retards is my way of dealing with the dysfunction acquired from the beatings I suffered behind Kane Hall. Axe @YellowSnow about it. He knows what happened to me.
Trump is a Boob @Swaye . But where do his transgressions rank in the History of the Republic? I can think of plenty worse by past Presidents who never came close to losing their jobs.
"This is a country that backed away from removing Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and that avoided the first successful impeachment of a sitting president because of Richard Nixon’s resignation. A Senate vote to remove Trump would effectively declare that Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president, and other efforts to hold up congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine, was the worst decision of any president in American history, and the only one that warranted this ultimate punishment."
Stare decisis. It doesn't technically apply to these proceedings; for as many have pointed out, this is political, not legal. That said, it still matters as a fundamental indicator of fairness and intellectual honesty in how we? manage important processes.
Impeachment is very much political and not criminal. Nixon lost in the court of public opinion which is why he had to resign. In this current era of 50/50 scorched Earth polarization, something equivalent to quid pro quo badgering of a foreign leader ain't enough to get it done. I think Clinton's perjury is probably morally equivalent to Trump's phone call and yet the Dems told us we needed to Moveon.Org because of 60% approval ratings.
Nixon only lost in the court of public opinion once the tapes were released and his own words impugned him. Holding up tax payer appropriated funds to further his own personal political goals is far worse than watergate or blowjobgate BUT the dems and the public are still lacking a "tape" of Trump explicitly directing the scheme. Would Mulvaney or Bolton provide that smoking gun? Maybe. Without that though this won't go anywhere.
Perhaps.
People forget that Nixon's worst "impeachable" offense came in days leading up to the 1968 election. And we only new about it because LBJ was spying on Nixon.
We? the public only learned about the evidence of Nixon's overtures to Thieu after he was gone...again lacked the "smoking gun".
Point being, numerous POTUS have broken the rules BIGLY and never got caught or NOC.
Wouldn't you agree that had congress and the public had access to the information at the time he doesn't even survive until 1974? Nixon knew the charge was serious hence why he called LBJ to try and claim he didn't make the overture he made.
I have to disagree with the notion that because Nixon got away with (arguably) treason in the lead up to the 68 election we? shouldn't hold future presidents accountable for (arguably) lesser but still serious charges.
Trump is a Boob @Swaye . But where do his transgressions rank in the History of the Republic? I can think of plenty worse by past Presidents who never came close to losing their jobs.
"This is a country that backed away from removing Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and that avoided the first successful impeachment of a sitting president because of Richard Nixon’s resignation. A Senate vote to remove Trump would effectively declare that Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president, and other efforts to hold up congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine, was the worst decision of any president in American history, and the only one that warranted this ultimate punishment."
Stare decisis. It doesn't technically apply to these proceedings; for as many have pointed out, this is political, not legal. That said, it still matters as a fundamental indicator of fairness and intellectual honesty in how we? manage important processes.
Impeachment is very much political and not criminal. Nixon lost in the court of public opinion which is why he had to resign. In this current era of 50/50 scorched Earth polarization, something equivalent to quid pro quo badgering of a foreign leader ain't enough to get it done. I think Clinton's perjury is probably morally equivalent to Trump's phone call and yet the Dems told us we needed to Moveon.Org because of 60% approval ratings.
Nixon only lost in the court of public opinion once the tapes were released and his own words impugned him. Holding up tax payer appropriated funds to further his own personal political goals is far worse than watergate or blowjobgate BUT the dems and the public are still lacking a "tape" of Trump explicitly directing the scheme. Would Mulvaney or Bolton provide that smoking gun? Maybe. Without that though this won't go anywhere.
Perhaps.
People forget that Nixon's worst "impeachable" offense came in days leading up to the 1968 election. And we only new about it because LBJ was spying on Nixon.
We? the public only learned about the evidence of Nixon's overtures to Thieu after he was gone...again lacked the "smoking gun".
Point being, numerous POTUS have broken the rules BIGLY and never got caught or NOC.
Wouldn't you agree that had congress and the public had access to the information at the time he doesn't even survive until 1974? Nixon knew the charge was serious hence why he called LBJ to try and claim he didn't make the overture he made.
I have to disagree with the notion that because Nixon got away with (arguably) treason in the lead up to the 68 election we? shouldn't hold future presidents accountable for (arguably) lesser but still serious charges.
It's not a hard and fast rule. But like the death penalty, you should strive for what they call at the appellate level for those cases "proportionate imposition of the ultimate penalty". Why? Because the whole thing will almost always involve partisanship, and ideally you want your institutions to have some level of an outward appearance of fairness. Otherwise they don't mean anything and nobody takes them seriously.
Trump is a Boob @Swaye . But where do his transgressions rank in the History of the Republic? I can think of plenty worse by past Presidents who never came close to losing their jobs.
"This is a country that backed away from removing Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and that avoided the first successful impeachment of a sitting president because of Richard Nixon’s resignation. A Senate vote to remove Trump would effectively declare that Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president, and other efforts to hold up congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine, was the worst decision of any president in American history, and the only one that warranted this ultimate punishment."
Stare decisis. It doesn't technically apply to these proceedings; for as many have pointed out, this is political, not legal. That said, it still matters as a fundamental indicator of fairness and intellectual honesty in how we? manage important processes.
Impeachment is very much political and not criminal. Nixon lost in the court of public opinion which is why he had to resign. In this current era of 50/50 scorched Earth polarization, something equivalent to quid pro quo badgering of a foreign leader ain't enough to get it done. I think Clinton's perjury is probably morally equivalent to Trump's phone call and yet the Dems told us we needed to Moveon.Org because of 60% approval ratings.
Nixon only lost in the court of public opinion once the tapes were released and his own words impugned him. Holding up tax payer appropriated funds to further his own personal political goals is far worse than watergate or blowjobgate BUT the dems and the public are still lacking a "tape" of Trump explicitly directing the scheme. Would Mulvaney or Bolton provide that smoking gun? Maybe. Without that though this won't go anywhere.
Perhaps.
People forget that Nixon's worst "impeachable" offense came in days leading up to the 1968 election. And we only new about it because LBJ was spying on Nixon.
We? the public only learned about the evidence of Nixon's overtures to Thieu after he was gone...again lacked the "smoking gun".
Point being, numerous POTUS have broken the rules BIGLY and never got caught or NOC.
Wouldn't you agree that had congress and the public had access to the information at the time he doesn't even survive until 1974? Nixon knew the charge was serious hence why he called LBJ to try and claim he didn't make the overture he made.
I have to disagree with the notion that because Nixon got away with (arguably) treason in the lead up to the 68 election we? shouldn't hold future presidents accountable for (arguably) lesser but still serious charges.
No one is saying that because Nixon got away with REAL treason, Trump or future Presidents should be able to get away with less. This gist of this piece, which I tend to agree with, is that are Trump's abuses of power so egregious as to merit his being the first POTUS removed from office via impeachment? Half the country and half the Senate don't seem to think so. Conviction and removal was designed by the Founders as to require an overwhelming majority so it wouldn't just be a tool to overturn elections.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Don't feel badly. Sonny used to argue with Tom Hagen too. Eventually, when that famous Sicilian temper would cool, he'd see things Tom's way.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Some of us tried to say Trump was never a republican from the beginning.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Don't feel badly. Sonny used to argue with Tom Hagen too. Eventually, when that famous Sicilian temper would cool, he'd see things Tom's way.
Creep, he's clearly something different and new from the traditional GOP platform. But what you're talking about isn't neo-con which instead is internationalism/nation building in the Middle East.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Don't feel badly. Sonny used to argue with Tom Hagen too. Eventually, when that famous Sicilian temper would cool, he'd see things Tom's way.
Creep, he's clearly something different and new from the traditional GOP platform. But what you're talking about isn't neo-con which instead is internationalism/nation building in the Middle East.
I concede, but then the term has been aborted and hijacked. I'm parroting what they call themselves.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Some of us tried to say Trump was never a republican from the beginning.
But he had to pick a party, and as some old man I once knew used to say, the Ds abandoned the working class to get into bed with Wall Street and New England intellectuals and that void was filled with the Republican party. So it made sense for him to pick that platform given the platform on which he was going to make a run.
Comments
If any of you guy's gets in my way, just one call to Creep and problem solved.
I have to disagree with the notion that because Nixon got away with (arguably) treason in the lead up to the 68 election we? shouldn't hold future presidents accountable for (arguably) lesser but still serious charges.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Don't feel badly. Sonny used to argue with Tom Hagen too. Eventually, when that famous Sicilian temper would cool, he'd see things Tom's way.