This NRO piece sums up my view of the Impeachment proceedings

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

Swaye said:

@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.

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

Swaye said:

@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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

Swaye said:

@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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

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.