gbasden wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 5:15 am
he's smart enough to know that he's impaired to some level by his age and will surround himself with smart, talented people, and will trust them.
This cannot be overvalued, IMO. In any system, I look for the ability to self-evaluate and make improvements based on that self evaluation. This, equally as important as their denial of reality, is why I have rejected the GOP for the last 18 years.
There has to be a real mechanism to say "I'm wrong, but I will improve" or "I don't know, but I will find out" or "This is important, I'm not educated, I will listen to experts."
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
Pulled my property tax letter out of the mailbox today. Big letters TAX YEAR 2020 on it. My instant thought was Trump supposedly has hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn't pay taxes and me disabled with around $60 a month free has to pay them. Im now mad and Ill be mad all day. %^#$^^$&@$!@!!!
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
Top aides of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have asked federal law enforcement authorities to investigate allegations of improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential crimes against the state’s top lawyer.
In a one-page letter to the state agency’s director of human resources, obtained Saturday by the American-Statesman and KVUE-TV, seven executives in the upper tiers of the office said that they are seeking the investigation into Paxton “in his official capacity as the current Attorney General of Texas.”
The Thursday letter said that each “has knowledge of facts relevant to these potential offenses and has provided statements concerning those facts to the appropriate law enforcement.”
...
The letter to human resources was signed by Paxton’s first assistant, Jeff Mateer, who resigned Friday, and Mateer’s deputy Ryan Bangert. It is also signed by James Blake Brickman, Lacey Mase, Darren McCarty, Mark Penley and Ryan Vassar, who are deputy attorneys general overseeing the divisions of policy, administration, civil litigation, criminal investigations and legal counsel.
“We have a good faith belief that the attorney general is violating federal and/or state law including prohibitions related to improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential criminal offenses,” the letter states.
Their decisions to report possible illegal activity involving their employer represents a stunning development in an agency that prizes loyalty, particularly from within Paxton’s inner circle. It places a renewed spotlight on Paxton, who is already under indictment for alleged securities fraud.
Hungary’s crackdown on foreign-funded colleges, such as the George Soros-linked Central European University, was overturned by the European Union’s top court in a ruling that refocused attention on the erosion of the rule of law under Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
The judgment returns Hungary to the spotlight at a time when the EU is considering cutting funding to member states found to be flouting the rule of law. Orban, who is among the leaders trying to torpedo the effort, initially threatened to scupper the bloc’s 750 billion euro ($883 billion) coronavirus fund before offering last week to forgo billions of euros to escape further EU scrutiny.
Of all of Orban’s measures to roll back democracy over the past decade, his drive to oust CEU has been among the most emblematic. Soros, the Budapest-born U.S. investor and philanthropist, founded CEU after the fall of the Iron Curtain to train a new generation of leaders committed to liberal democratic values and open societies, something Orban has come to oppose.
Restrictions introduced in 2017 on foreign universities effectively barred CEU from enrolling new students limited academic freedom, the EU Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday. The government also violated EU safeguards on the freedom of establishment and free movement of services, the 13-judge panel said.
CEU might feel vindicated but Orban got what he wanted. They already moved out of country and moving back in any real capacity is going to be ... resisted to put it mildly. This shows why authoritarians sometimes have an edge.
dbt1949 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:48 pm
Trying to change people into democratic capitalists.
There were also a lot of volunteers in Vietnam too.
Enlistees are the backbone of any army, but people who're plucked out of their lives and forced to serve are something else entirely. They are what made that war so bitterly divisive, and the reason that Afghanistan has faded to an afterthought.
As it turned out, I was about a year too young to get sent to Vietnam, but I was old enough to fear that tap on the shoulder and grapple with whether I was willing to be a good American and die for Kissenger's geopolitical chess. (There was never any question in my mind that I would've died there; I was never soldier material by temperament or ability. My dad argued against the Canada option because I'd become an officer and have nothing to worry about.)
I wasn't even a teen when it ended, but I saw reports on TV every night that really affected me. I don't think we ever had that level of reporting for the Afghan War.
Seemed to me that most draftees didn't go to Vietnam. At first it was mostly volunteers but by the end over half were draftees and most of those seemed black. I knew a lot that took discharges the next step up from dishonorable. There was a different discharge system in place back then.
In both conflicts we went there to save the natives from the evil outsiders. Altho I will grant you the Taliban were none to fond of us from the beginning but gradually turned into desert viet cong.
We gradually increased our troops and firepower and won most of the battles but not the hearts and minds of the people. (at least the males in charge) We got exhausted and left leaving the countries to our enemies.
Fortunately we have better killing machines now and spare our troops better.
dbt1949 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:26 am
Seemed to me that most draftees didn't go to Vietnam. At first it was mostly volunteers but by the end over half were draftees and most of those seemed black. I knew a lot that took discharges the next step up from dishonorable. There was a different discharge system in place back then.
In both conflicts we went there to save the natives from the evil outsiders. Altho I will grant you the Taliban were none to fond of us from the beginning but gradually turned into desert viet cong.
We gradually increased our troops and firepower and won most of the battles but not the hearts and minds of the people. (at least the males in charge) We got exhausted and left leaving the countries to our enemies.
Fortunately we have better killing machines now and spare our troops better.
I can agree with all of that. Neither war could be won militarily, which is probably the most important characteristic that they share, and they're both going to end up in the "lost" column.
Have you noticed that in all of today's campaign rhetoric and debates, Afghanistan has never come up? That's the most important difference with Vietnam. Afghanistan is already forgotten.
dbt1949 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:26 am
Seemed to me that most draftees didn't go to Vietnam. At first it was mostly volunteers but by the end over half were draftees and most of those seemed black. I knew a lot that took discharges the next step up from dishonorable. There was a different discharge system in place back then.
In both conflicts we went there to save the natives from the evil outsiders. Altho I will grant you the Taliban were none to fond of us from the beginning but gradually turned into desert viet cong.
We gradually increased our troops and firepower and won most of the battles but not the hearts and minds of the people. (at least the males in charge) We got exhausted and left leaving the countries to our enemies.
Fortunately we have better killing machines now and spare our troops better.
I can agree with all of that. Neither war could be won militarily, which is probably the most important characteristic that they share, and they're both going to end up in the "lost" column.
Have you noticed that in all of today's campaign rhetoric and debates, Afghanistan has never come up? That's the most important difference with Vietnam. Afghanistan is already forgotten.
I just saw yesterday that Trump announced he wants all troops in Afghanistan to be home by Christmas.
Unagi wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:31 am
I just saw yesterday that Trump announced he wants all troops in Afghanistan to be home by Christmas.
He has been removing troops steadily, hasn't he? For good or ill. I'm actually surprised he hasn't been hammering on that all along. That's a big plus for masses in his America First AntiGlobalist support (and to some extent rightly so IMO)
dbt1949 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:26 am
Fortunately we have better killing machines now and spare our troops better.
This is the big difference as I see it. Better equipment, better logistics, better medical (ironically means more wounded vets due to higher survival rates).
I mean it's Vietnam in the era of technology and convenience. KFC on base and the eye in the sky knows where you are at all times.
Still, aside from being spared the baseless ignominy at the hands of an ignorant public, war is still war and bullshit is still bullshit.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "“I like taking the guns early...to go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.” -President Donald Trump. "...To guard, protect, and maintain his liberty, the freedman should have the ballot; that the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the Ballot-box, the Jury-box, and the Cartridge-box, that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country." - Frederick Douglass MYT
Two Washington Post national security reporters on Wednesday announced they will sue the Defense Department for further details on overseas troop reductions announced by President Trump.
In a column for the newspaper, the two reporters, Kate Brannen and Ryan Goodman, note recent Pentagon announcements on drawdowns of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The department has said it will reduce troops in Iraq by nearly half, from 5,300 to 3,000. In Afghanistan, meanwhile, the Pentagon plans to reduce troops from around 8,600 to 4,500 by November.
The Trump administration, the two noted, has stopped releasing numbers on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria deployments since December 2017, complicating any analysis of drawdowns and how they compare to public promises.
“These drawdowns are occurring right before the presidential election. And like Trump’s unrealistic vaccine promise and his missing health-care plan, it requires scrutiny from the news media and the American public to understand whether Trump is actually delivering, and whether these troop movements are responsive to what’s happening on the ground or are politically motivated to help Trump secure a second term,” the two wrote.
The Pentagon has not responded to a Freedom of Information Act request the reporters filed in April, prompting the Wednesday lawsuit.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Unagi wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:31 am
I just saw yesterday that Trump announced he wants all troops in Afghanistan to be home by Christmas.
He has been removing troops steadily, hasn't he? For good or ill. I'm actually surprised he hasn't been hammering on that all along. That's a big plus for masses in his America First AntiGlobalist support (and to some extent rightly so IMO)
President Trump has long called for troops to come home and has criticised US military interventions for being costly and ineffective.
Mr O'Hanlon says: "Mr Trump has scaled back the presence he inherited in Afghanistan and to a limited extent in Iraq and Syria."
This year the president reduced the number of troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 from 13,000 and plans to cut the number further before the 3 November election.
But, says Mr O'Hanlon: "He has only moved the needle modestly in terms of global operations and deployments, as we remain everywhere that we were on January 20, 2017 when he took office."
He has done of lot of talking about bringing troops home, but it's almost always in the future. (His much-touted withdrawal of troops from Syria was really just a redeployment designed to avoid inconveniencing Russia.)
The conspiracy involved at least six members. Their specific unregulated militia affiliation (if they have one) hasn’t been identified.
This is apparently connected to an investigation that last week resulted in a stand-off in which an anti-government extremist was killed and some FBI agents wounded.
I'm ever more fearful of the them in my state and how close they are pushing to open armed assaults on our state government. They're getting bolder and nuttier.
How exactly do you "overthrow" a state government? You'd have the Feds and 49 other states on you before you even opened the door to the Capitol. Plus you'd have the unruly Michigan populace to contend with.
More boys trying to play soldier.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "“I like taking the guns early...to go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.” -President Donald Trump. "...To guard, protect, and maintain his liberty, the freedman should have the ballot; that the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the Ballot-box, the Jury-box, and the Cartridge-box, that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country." - Frederick Douglass MYT
LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:19 pm
How exactly do you "overthrow" a state government? You'd have the Feds and 49 other states on you before you even opened the door to the Capitol. Plus you'd have the unruly Michigan populace to contend with.
Based on court documents, the FBI was well aware of the activities of the men charged Thursday and there does not seem to have been an imminent threat posed to Gov. Whitmer, a Democrat.
