POP! Goes the Democrat!

[idaho]

@Bismark

Out of curiosity, were these DoS folks you had a negative perception of political appointees or career foreign service officers?

Both, and DoS is so politically motivated, it would be hard to tell the difference between the two. Career foreign service personnel are more interested in their political climb up the ladder than doing any diplomatic work. At one time, “Route Irish” a road from the old Republican Guard palace to the military side of Baghdad International was the most dangerous 8 miles in Iraq. Attacks were common and we were shot at almost every trip (armored vehicles). Before they put heavy fencing on top of a couple of overpasses, we would get grenades thrown at us on a daily basis.

Yet, one assistant secretary for Economic Affairs insisted on going at least 4 times a week, he told me the more he went, the more he would impress his supervisor for a promotion, half the time, he would lie about meeting someone and spend his time in the Green Bean coffee shop. (Green Bean shops are found on nearly every FOB and base).

@Bismark

One could argue that DoS - in spite of being shamefully under resourced and marginalized compared to their inter-agency partners - have a track record of being more clear eyed on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq than many at DoD (excluding DIA).

Over all, yes, especially the ones committed to doing the job, but, these were usually low level personnel. Remember, the Ambassador sets the tone and the rules, and since they are appointed by the President, usually try to please him. I have actually liked working for a couple of Ambassadors and both were candid enough to use the job for what it is, a springboard to a corporation or president of a major university.

@Bismark

Also, why shouldn’t congress - especially foreign relations and armed service committee members - visit places like Afghanistan and Iraq? They’re executing their constitutional mandate of oversight and policy formulation.

Yes, that is their job, but, a visit from our distinguished leaders were nothing but photo ops for their constitutes back in their home state. They were each bring about 20 support personnel, usually including a make up artist and hair stylist ( funded by your tax money) They never , ever actually went into the red zone. They always treated the security and Military/ Embassy support personnel assigned to them like slaves. Asking people to take back their coffee because it had too much cream or complaining that it was too hot or too dusty. One told me that he would not follow my orders on wearing a protective vest, because his shit cost more than what I was wearing. They truly think they are privileged beings , but, what they really are are just ass kissing assholes.

Not being bitter, aggressive, or spiteful. That was my personal experience, someone else may have a different view.

[Rockscar]

Blockquote

Aragorn, just been working and maintaining check the 35 over forum for progress. I’m probably not going to be active like I was in the mid 2000’s but will check in periodically.

[Rockscar]

And I really obviously don’t know this new interface either.

[Chris_Colucci]

@Rockscar

And I really obviously don’t know this new interface either.

Good to see you back. You can get a better handle on the features by playing around with test posts in this thread: The Forum Feature Practice Thread

[treco]

@Bismark

Outside of the other babble that follow, do you care to expand on this?

Whoa Biz. You still upset over the cut and paste deal?
Of course, being in Foreign Relations, you have to know I am referring to Omar &Tlaib. Both notable anti Semites.

In reference to your remaining post - l am relatively the lone poster here that takes up Trump’s side here for several reasons:
1 He is hated as the interupter and has been since entering the race
2 Most of the attacks launched at him, have fallen short of real corroboration. Even with the opposition of the Left, media/entertainment, NeoCons like yourself, and still to be fully exposed as corrupt segments within the government
3 l happen to agree with many of his stated stances
4 Getting rid of the President of the leading country of the world for heretofore political reasons is likely a Black Swan event. At the minimum, has proven to be quite the distraction in maintaining leading country obligations.

I understand your Bush Doctrine mindset, and vary from it in some aspects.
These are my opinions.
1 Nato is of use, EU needed to be called out. Both for their lack of $ and admission of not maintaining their militaries at acceptable levels.
2 China needs to be in check. The US has allowed them to fulfill most of their 100 year plan. They have stolen, cheated, and abused the entire world to establish enough economy to now move to their dream of military eminence
3 Iran / N Korea have again proven themselves within the past week, that they also will lie, cheat, and whatever to get themselves to full nuclear status. While peace is certainly 100% better than war, their leadership are probably unredeemable and are already the worst of the bad actors on the world stage.
4 Throw in Russia with the 2 above, we simply can’t ignore having some sort of diplomatic relations with them. We have it with China. Any time we talk to a ‘competitor’ is not some puppetry. Granted, Russia should be called out on election interference. Seriously, we are the regime change leaders of the world. My observation tells me that’s what nations do.
5 l think we should have a big stick army, but nation building (particularly after regime change and destroying said nation’s infrastructure into stone age) is not my bag.

That’s it for now other the mayor pete. He has been mayor of a city the size of your city. That hardly qualifies as becoming CEO of the free world.

[H_factor]

@treco

3 l happen to agree with many of his stated stances

I struggle to know what these are. He has been consistent in the wall part. What are the other stated stances that you support that he hasn’t changed his mind or contradicted himself on?

Is it the stated stances of defaulting on the debt? Not worrying about the debt because we print money?

His promise to drain the swamp while surrounding himself with people who are going to jail?

His stance that it wouldn’t be hard to get rid of the debt despite it already increasing and projected increases? In a time when bailouts or stimulus packages aren’t needed?

His stance that everyone will get cheaper healthcare and all be covered? (I certainly support this stance but have no idea how he plans to do it and neither does he.)

His changing of sanctions on North Korea one day after his administration put them on?

His “idea” to let service people play professional sports first. Which was something that took place through the Obama era until he got elected?

Is if pretending to have the biggest inauguration crowd? Lying about seeing tons of people cheer 9/11 where he was at?

Hell a lot of what he says appeals to me but it changes all the time and most often it is backed up by no ideas of how to achieve it. I just can’t figure out two years in what the President stands for and won’t be swayed on. His guiding principles seem to be build the wall and keep the pressure up on dead John McCain.

[Legalsteel]

@H_factor

I struggle to know what these are. He has been consistent in the wall part. What are the other stated stances that you support that he hasn’t changed his mind or contradicted himself on?

Tariffs and a Buchananite paelocon stance. From that perspective, almost none of his foreign policy decisions are surprising.

EDIT: Also, his general belligerence on trade, Chinese trade in particular.

[H_factor]

@Legalsteel

EDIT: Also, his general belligerence on trade, Chinese trade in particular.

Yes he has been consistent on that. I still think the overwhelming majority of what he wants to do is completely open for interpretation. It’s not like he has laid out plans or a roadmap of any sort. He gets on different kicks for a while and moves on. I feel like if Fox and Friends came out hard against or for something he would magically do the same thing.

Just seems like a guy in a car with gas saying “let’s just see where this takes us.”

[thunderbolt23]

@treco

Millions of dollars wasted

Didn’t the investigation pay for itself and turn a profit?

@treco

3 lost years of opportunities

Trump and the GOP controlled the lawmaking branches for two straight years before the Democrats took over the House, and what did they do except pass a tax cut?

Who wasted that opportunity?

@treco

beating the drum of projection at such a fevered pitch that the society is becoming permanently divided.

Can it with this idea that the Left is dividing America while Trump isn’t. Trump is just as guilty at divisive politics as the shriekiest Leftist. He also engages in victim politics just as much.

Till you recognize that they are two sides of the exact same coin, there’s no reason to give your complaints any credibility.

[zecarlo]

Agreed. Trump was very vocal with his opposition to the birther movement. He is definitely a uniter and not a divider.

[H_factor]

@thunderbolt23

Didn’t the investigation pay for itself and turn a profit?

It also helped drain the swamp. See you have to fill a swamp before you drain it. Trump promise kept!

[Legalsteel]

@H_factor

Just seems like a guy in a car with gas saying “let’s just see where this takes us.”

On most things, sure. I don’t think he’s a hugely ideological person.

[Aragorn]

@Rockscar

Aragorn, just been working and maintaining check the 35 over forum for progress. I’m probably not going to be active like I was in the mid 2000’s but will check in periodically

Done and done. Ironically this subforum is the one I now spend almost all my posts on…I still have yet to figure that one out. Probably comes from my work so this is now an “off topic” forum.

[loppar]

Historian Niall Ferguson is expanding on the topic that two great minds already discussed here, @dt79 and myself - the incorrect usage of the term “socialism” in US politics.

The spectre of socialism in America - The Boston Globe

The big story here is the growing enthusiasm for socialism among younger Americans. Whereas only 27 percent of over-65s have a positive view of socialism, according to an Axios poll conducted in January, 61 percent of those aged 18-29 do.

Of course, it all depends what you mean by “capitalism” and “socialism.” Ask Americans about “small business,” “entrepreneurs” or “free enterprise” and you get 79-92 percent approval, according to Gallup. By “capitalism” they seem to understand something closer to “big business.”

In its original sense, socialism (as the Oxford English Dictionary makes clear) is “a system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society.” But that is not what young Americans think it means. They appear to associate socialism with government-provided health care and university education. (An ingenuous few think that socialism just means being sociable.)

As AOC put it to Anderson Cooper in a recent interview, “What we have in mind and what my policies most closely resemble are what we see in the UK, in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden.” But just how socialist is Sweden, a country often depicted as utopia by progressive types who have never actually been there? In fact, the country comes 10th in the World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness league table; 12th in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings; and 19th (out of 186) in the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom rankings.

Not only do American socialists not know what socialism is; they don’t know where it is either.

Socialism does still exist around the world in various forms. If you want to see state ownership in action, along with the corruption, inefficiency and poverty that invariably goes with it, I recommend Caracas, Pyongyang or—more picturesque—Havana. Don’t look for it in Europe, where even Social Democratic parties have been haemorrhaging voters since the 1990s.

But if you just want to have a debate about the degree of redistribution you want to do through the tax and benefits systems, don’t confuse yourself by talking about socialism. The democratic world is all capitalist now. Voters just choose how much they want to mitigate the inequalities inevitably produced by the market. At one end are the Chileans and Mexicans, who do very little redistribution; at the other are the Finns and the Irish, who do quite a lot. Everyone else is somewhere in between.

[zecarlo]

Ferguson is obviously a maga hating socialist.

[H_factor]

Those damn socialist Dems. I bet if they were in charge they would do something like give 27 billon or so to farmers. Maybe it’s time for a career change. I just read a WSJ article about farmers watching Netflix while they plowed fields since you can program GPS and it does the work for you. Netflix and 27 billion doesn’t sound all bad.*

Tongue in cheek. My good friends a farmer and he only has satellite radio in his combine.

[Mufasa]

Steve Bullock…Governor of Montana.

Just announced he is running for President. (What’s that…23-24 on the DEM side? Getting kinda’ ridiculous now…)

Trump must be LOVING this; but it’s pretty clear that his main focus is on Biden.

[SkyzykS]

It’s like they’re playing Red Rover. Maybe if they have whole bunch of people someone will get a good run and break through.

They really need a fat kid. That’s the one game fat kids were really good at.

[Basement_Gainz]

@SkyzykS

That’s the one game fat kids were really good at.

Hey! I’m good at other stuff. Like… um… dammit!

[treco]

Think Biden son’s business dealings will have an effect?