Political Randomness

[Carpet_pissr]

When will a president ever get the confidence to admit, during a “State of the Union” address, that ‘we have never been weaker as a nation than we are now’.

I think both sides would appreciate the honesty.

When they’re “President for Life” and don’t have to worry about upcoming elections.

[Defiant]

When will a president ever get the confidence to admit, during a “State of the Union” address, that ‘we have never been weaker as a nation than we are now’.

It'll never happen, because the country will always have one big thing going for it - it'll have the best person as president, and not that loser from the other side or the last president from the other side.

[Unagi]

When will a president ever get the confidence to admit, during a “State of the Union” address, that ‘we have never been weaker as a nation than we are now’.

I think both sides would appreciate the honesty.

When they’re “President for Life” and don’t have to worry about upcoming elections.

So, Biden in a couple years ?

[Pyperkub]

When will a president ever get the confidence to admit, during a “State of the Union” address, that ‘we have never been weaker as a nation than we are now’.

I think both sides would appreciate the honesty.

Honestly, because that's false that we are weaker than ever. We are arguably a stronger nation in terms of world power than we ever have been.

However, our UNION is not as strong as it has been, and is fraying. Yet, it is still nowhere near as disunified as it had been during other eras of our history (see 1850's - 1880's as one example).

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Unagi]

When will a president ever get the confidence to admit, during a “State of the Union” address, that ‘we have never been weaker as a nation than we are now’.
We are arguably a stronger nation in terms of world power than we ever have been.

I totally disagree.
Post-Trump we have lost an enormous amount of "world power" (assuming we agree on the nuance of that term). Additionally (and yet, still connected to Trump in some part), we have also lost an enormous amount of "world power" simply because the general trend in "the world" (sadly) has shifted away from what the USA once was the lionized champion of... So what we "used to sell" isn't even as popular.

However, our UNION is not as strong as it has been and is fraying. Yet, it is still nowhere near as disunified as it had been during other eras of our history (see 1850's - 1880's as one example).

OK - hello - just a little reality check... it's about time to stop comparing ourselves to a version of ourselves that is now 150-175 years in our past.

Every "State" of the "Union" address loves to say, literally; "The State of the Union has NEVER been stronger!"... and if nothing else, it was actually stronger 30 years ago (for random instance).

[Blackhawk]

We still have a lot of power. Exactly how much compared to (whenever) would be hard to quantify, but we still have power.

What we've lost is influence.

And alongside influence, trust and respect.

/edit - and before someone throws it back in my face, yeah - I know that influence is power.

[Unagi]

We still have a lot of power. Exactly how much compared to (whenever) would be hard to quantify, but we still have power.

What we've lost is influence.

And alongside influence, trust and respect.

/edit - and before someone throws it back in my face, yeah - I know that influence is power.

Our power was our influence.

You are arguing semantics.

[Unagi]

Anyhow.
I tried to keep your comment from being formed when I said: “ assuming we agree on the nuance of that term”

[Blackhawk]

Our power was our influence.

You are arguing semantics.

Our influence is part of our power. As is our economy, our military, our industry (although that was sliding long before recent events), our innovation, our natural resources (including the amount of space we have), our allies, our leadership, control, and reach which we never let go of following WWII, our ideals, our leadership and probably a laundry list of other things.

[Isgrimnur]

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

[Kraken]

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

There is soft power and hard power. America's hard power is indisputable. Soft power is a lot harder, and arguably more important, since one only uses hard power when soft fails. Florida Man permanently damaged the diplomatic/cultural aspects of soft power. Biden has carefully tended to restoring it, with some help from Putin, but the world now knows that we might reverse ourselves after any given election. If trump should win next year, Ukraine belongs to Putin and NATO is on its own.

[Blackhawk]

We've also shown that we can't keep our own house in order. That lowers our clout when pushing others to clean up theirs.

[LordMortis]

the world now knows that we might reverse ourselves after any given election.

Assuming, and it's a big assuming, Trump does not win, one has to wonder how long the US knows we might reverse ourselves after any given election, much less the world.

[Max Peck]

This should provide some good conspiracy fodder.

Cocaine found in White House sparks brief evacuation

The US Secret Service is investigating after cocaine was found at the White House on Sunday night.

The discovery in the West Wing, which contains the Oval Office and other working areas for presidential aides and staff, led to a brief evacuation.

Secret Service agents found the suspicious powder in an area that is accessible to tour groups while doing a routine inspection.

President Joe Biden and his family were at Camp David in Maryland at the time.

A senior law enforcement official told the BBC's US partner CBS News the substance was found in a storage facility routinely used by White House staff and guests to store mobile phones.

The White House complex was closed as a precaution around 20:45 local time (00:45 GMT) on Sunday after it was discovered.

A preliminary test later confirmed the substance was cocaine.

[Pyperkub]

However, our UNION is not as strong as it has been and is fraying. Yet, it is still nowhere near as disunified as it had been during other eras of our history (see 1850's - 1880's as one example).

OK - hello - just a little reality check... it's about time to stop comparing ourselves to a version of ourselves that is now 150-175 years in our past.

Every "State" of the "Union" address loves to say, literally; "The State of the Union has NEVER been stronger!"... and if nothing else, it was actually stronger 30 years ago (for random instance).

I completely disagree, in part because the forces fraying our Union are *very* similar to those at the time.

those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and repeating that era is NOT something we should be doing, despite all the damn Confederate Battle Flags being flown by idiots who idolize that time.

[El Guapo]

This should provide some good conspiracy fodder.

Cocaine found in White House sparks brief evacuation

The US Secret Service is investigating after cocaine was found at the White House on Sunday night.

The discovery in the West Wing, which contains the Oval Office and other working areas for presidential aides and staff, led to a brief evacuation.

Secret Service agents found the suspicious powder in an area that is accessible to tour groups while doing a routine inspection.

President Joe Biden and his family were at Camp David in Maryland at the time.

A senior law enforcement official told the BBC's US partner CBS News the substance was found in a storage facility routinely used by White House staff and guests to store mobile phones.

The White House complex was closed as a precaution around 20:45 local time (00:45 GMT) on Sunday after it was discovered.

A preliminary test later confirmed the substance was cocaine.

What's the most likely (non-crazy) explanation for this? Guessing that some staffer(s) was using the spot as a (relatively?) isolated spot to do cocaine.

[Octavious]

Obviously it's Hunter. Hell I heard my coworker blame the sub search on trying to distract from Hunter courts cases. I just walked away so that I didn't get myself fired.

[Pyperkub]

Obviously it's Hunter. Hell I heard my coworker blame the sub search on trying to distract from Hunter courts cases. I just walked away so that I didn't get myself fired.

Well, it could be left over from the Bush Cocaine addicts support group...

[El Guapo]

Obviously it's Hunter. Hell I heard my coworker blame the sub search on trying to distract from Hunter courts cases. I just walked away so that I didn't get myself fired.

Well, it could be left over from the Bush Cocaine addicts support group...

Yeah I don't think it's the most likely explanation, but it's not crazy to think (depending on the circumstances of where exactly the cocaine was found and in what condition) that it could've been an old stash of Hunter's.

[Pyperkub]

Obviously it's Hunter. Hell I heard my coworker blame the sub search on trying to distract from Hunter courts cases. I just walked away so that I didn't get myself fired.

Well, it could be left over from the Bush Cocaine addicts support group...

Yeah I don't think it's the most likely explanation, but it's not crazy to think (depending on the circumstances of where exactly the cocaine was found and in what condition) that it could've been an old stash of Hunter's.

On the other hand, we know he seems to prefer Crack

[Max Peck]

What's the most likely (non-crazy) explanation for this? Guessing that some staffer(s) was using the spot as a (relatively?) isolated spot to do cocaine.

The article mentions that the area is accessible to tour groups, so pretty much any staffer or visitor might have left it there. If it's where people leave their cellphones before going through a physical security screening process, someone may have realized they had it on them and surreptitiously dumped it there so that it wouldn't be found if they were searched or had to empty out their pockets on the way in.

Also, since it was found during a "routine inspection" the odds are that it hasn't been there all that long, unless this particular routine inspection was more thorough than all the other routine inspections.

[Jaymann]

Nevertheless, the gray-matter challenged will try to paint this as Biden is a drug crazed zombie being propped up by evil white powder. I don't even have to verify.

[Max Peck]

Well, we all know that Biden has been using a CPAP, and that's just short for Cocaine Personal Administration Paraphernalia. Why else do they call it the Biden Administration? The puzzle pieces all fit!

[coopasonic]

Nevertheless, the gray-matter challenged will try to paint this as Biden is a drug crazed zombie being propped up by evil white powder. I don't even have to verify.

Sleepy Joe the coke-head? Hmm, yeah that tracks.

[Pyperkub]

Nevertheless, the gray-matter challenged will try to paint this as Biden is a drug crazed zombie being propped up by evil white powder. I don't even have to verify.

Sleepy Joe the coke-head? Hmm, yeah that tracks.

Literally Sleepy, given the CPAP!

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[LordMortis]

Nevertheless, the gray-matter challenged will try to paint this as Biden is a drug crazed zombie being propped up by evil white powder. I don't even have to verify.

Won't it be a Hunter visit to White House that Biden is personally covering up?

[Blackhawk]

C'mon. It's obviously a leftover from Clinton. He didn't know what to do with it without inhaling.

[Alefroth]

I thought Hunter was a crack smoker. Don Jr. is the railer.

[Pyperkub]

I thought Hunter was a crack smoker. Don Jr. is the railer.

In Gay Nightclubs apparently (per today's Trump family member cheating on his wife news....)

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Apollo]

Regarding Hungary and Turkey's unwillingness to allow Sweden into NATO, how about this solution: What if the US or EU simply created another alliance, we'll call it NATO II, and got all the NATO nations, other than Hungary and Turkey, to join it. That way, if Sweden was attacked, all of NATO except for Hungary and Turkey, could rush to their defense under the NATO II treaty.

Yes, I know it sounds stupid and gimmicky, but would it work? I really feel sorry for the Swedes, since they stuck their neck out to try and join NATO, and now have angered the Russians, who seem willing to do whatever they want nowadays. I would have a lot more respect for Hungary and Turkey's positions if they weren't so obviously authoritarian, pro-Putin governments. And if they got pissed over the creation of a NATO II, and threatened to leave NATO, I would simply tell them "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Seriously, we can't let these two nations whose agendas currently run counter to NATO's core values continue to cripple NATO's ability to expand. Furthermore, I believe if NATO were drawn into a conflict against Russia they would both be dubious allies at best. I really feel that we need to come up with some way to get around these two, and the sooner the better.

[Isgrimnur]

[El Guapo]

Is there any way to revise the admissions procedures so that Sweden could be admitted with only 75% - 80% of members supporting, rather than unanimous? Would be good to at least have that as an option, as that would greatly weaken Hungary + Turkey's bargaining leverage.

[malchior]

The only way to modify the charter is by unanimous consent. It'd also likely have to be ratified by member nations legislatures. So realistically it'd probably have to be a gimmick like NATO II (though that'd never happen). The situation stinks because Turkey is unworthy of NATO but entered when it was a much better version of itself. But then again so was the United States.

[El Guapo]

That's unfortunate.

So why is Sweden getting caught up when Finland didn't? Are Hungary + Turkey just demanding more ransom payments for Sweden than they did for Finland?

[LordMortis]

The good news is the US won't blink at aiding Sweden... unless the Federalist MAGA GOP grow in power... If they do, I suppose US participation in NATO is useless from a mutual perspective anyway.

[Max Peck]

That's unfortunate.

So why is Sweden getting caught up when Finland didn't? Are Hungary + Turkey just demanding more ransom payments for Sweden than they did for Finland?

IIRC, Hungary and Turkey are both bent out of shape because Sweden has criticized them in the recent past over things like human rights. Additionally, what Sweden sees as Kurdish political refugees, Turkey sees as Kurdish terrorists.

[Unagi]

Regarding Hungary and Turkey's unwillingness to allow Sweden into NATO, how about this solution: What if the US or EU simply created another alliance, we'll call it NATO II, and got all the NATO nations, other than Hungary and Turkey, to join it. That way, if Sweden was attacked, all of NATO except for Hungary and Turkey, could rush to their defense under the NATO II treaty.

Yes, I know it sounds stupid and gimmicky, but would it work? I really feel sorry for the Swedes, since they stuck their neck out to try and join NATO, and now have angered the Russians, who seem willing to do whatever they want nowadays. I would have a lot more respect for Hungary and Turkey's positions if they weren't so obviously authoritarian, pro-Putin governments. And if they got pissed over the creation of a NATO II, and threatened to leave NATO, I would simply tell them "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Seriously, we can't let these two nations whose agendas currently run counter to NATO's core values continue to cripple NATO's ability to expand. Furthermore, I believe if NATO were drawn into a conflict against Russia they would both be dubious allies at best. I really feel that we need to come up with some way to get around these two, and the sooner the better.

I agree with all of this.

[El Guapo]

Regarding Hungary and Turkey's unwillingness to allow Sweden into NATO, how about this solution: What if the US or EU simply created another alliance, we'll call it NATO II, and got all the NATO nations, other than Hungary and Turkey, to join it. That way, if Sweden was attacked, all of NATO except for Hungary and Turkey, could rush to their defense under the NATO II treaty.

Yes, I know it sounds stupid and gimmicky, but would it work? I really feel sorry for the Swedes, since they stuck their neck out to try and join NATO, and now have angered the Russians, who seem willing to do whatever they want nowadays. I would have a lot more respect for Hungary and Turkey's positions if they weren't so obviously authoritarian, pro-Putin governments. And if they got pissed over the creation of a NATO II, and threatened to leave NATO, I would simply tell them "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Seriously, we can't let these two nations whose agendas currently run counter to NATO's core values continue to cripple NATO's ability to expand. Furthermore, I believe if NATO were drawn into a conflict against Russia they would both be dubious allies at best. I really feel that we need to come up with some way to get around these two, and the sooner the better.

I agree with all of this.

For the most part "NATO II: the NATO-ening" would not be practical. For one, presumably it would require treaty ratification by the relevant countries. One part of our ongoing political breakdown is that we can't reliably ratify even the most uncontroversial treaties (because that requires a 2/3rds vote in the Senate). And that's setting aside whether there would be any ratification problems in other countries.

So the path of least resistance seems to be giving Hungary + Turkey sufficiently large bribes.

[malchior]

It isn't even bribes here. The demand to Sweden is to compromise their core values and aid petty tyrants. And they are right to wonder if it is worth it when they might get 80% of the protection by just doing nothing.

[Apollo]

I read yesterday in the NYT that Hungary was willing to let Sweden in if Turkey would agree. Apparently Orban is just showing solidarity with Erdogan by holding out on Sweden.