U.S. Politics Thread

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

Sorry, I skipped to this last page. We were talking about impeaching him for Benghazi? Okay, I see where you're coming from now.

mmm, peaches

Although to be honest, the absolute craziest of craziest seem to be on an "Impeach Obama for everything" crusade these days. I heard they even tried that before he even took his 1st oath of office.

As I say, I don't actually think it is a bad thing. People who are publicly insane are easier to avoid than those who are secretly insane. It's just, well, I want Democrats to win because the GOP is frothing at the mouth, but in the long run to have two viable parties is healthier.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

I don't take Vallen's claim (that disapproving of the way Benghazi was handled makes one an insane right wing extremist) too seriously because I know that 'Hyperbole' is his middle name, ...

Whoa! Easy there. We aren't all perfect. You should know that yourself more than anyone. Couldn't you've put it in better words?

As for the issue of Benghazi itself, I think it was pretty clear the Obama administration handled it terribly in every possible way when American lives were at stake. At the same time, it should be noted that no evidence suggested up to this day that there was intentional cover up or conspiracies, the kind GOP's are seeking.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by monir

Whoa! Easy there. We aren't all perfect. You should know that yourself more than anyone. Couldn't you've put it in better words?

As for the issue of Benghazi itself, I think it was pretty clear the Obama administration handled it terribly in every possible way when American lives were at stake. At the same time, it should be noted that no evidence suggested up to this day that there was intentional cover up or conspiracies, the kind GOP's are seeking.

That's my point. Was there mistakes made? Yes. Was there a conspiracy? No. And the more... unhinged members of the GOP are staying with the conspiracy theory.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by monir

Whoa! Easy there. We aren't all perfect. You should know that yourself more than anyone. :eyebrow: Couldn't you've put it in better words?

Sorry. I didn't mean it badly, I like the guy quite well. Vallen's just fun to tease. :p

[Badkarma 1]

And who said I was a republican? I've been a card carryin Democrat since '86!
@Dr. Casey is right though, @Vallen Chaos Valient is easy to get riled.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

And who said I was a republican? I've been a card carryin Democrat since '86!

Because everything you post screams GOP to the core.

Also, pretty sure I have a Spiderman and his Amazing Friends membership card lying around somewhere. Doesn't make me a super hero.

[Ledgem]

I'm still a bit confused as to why Benghazi is such a big deal. I understand that it's being drawn out in an effort to score political points, but why would anyone in the public buy it? Particularly since the politicians' primary concern seems to be finding out who decided to call it a protest instead of a terrorist attack. Why does that matter?

If they said that some security procedure was missed or handled improperly, then I could understand the witch hunt and procedures analysis. If they wanted to discuss funding and ways to ensure that this didn't happen again then I would say that it's worthwhile. But to claim that something was covered up because the words "terror" and "terrorist" weren't used immediately? Am I missing something, or am I correct in saying that Congress - our highly-paid, public servants - are wasting their time on something ridiculous yet again?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'm still a bit confused as to why Benghazi is such a big deal. I understand that it's being drawn out in an effort to score political points, but why would anyone in the public buy it?

I would imagine that it's because it's much more "sellable" to their base voters, and that the general public really IS that stupid.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I would imagine that it's because it's much more "sellable" to their base voters, and that the general public really IS that stupid.

If Bengahzi actually WORKS in getting GOP back to power, I would say the voters deserved the GOP as their government.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

If Bengahzi actually WORKS in getting GOP back to power, I would say the voters deserved the GOP as their government.

Too bad than the impact of such election wouldn't be limited to thoses voters. A major fuck up from the US is likely to affect others countries as well.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'm still a bit confused as to why Benghazi is such a big deal. I understand that it's being drawn out in an effort to score political points, but why would anyone in the public buy it? Particularly since the politicians' primary concern seems to be finding out who decided to call it a protest instead of a terrorist attack. Why does that matter?

If they said that some security procedure was missed or handled improperly, then I could understand the witch hunt and procedures analysis. If they wanted to discuss funding and ways to ensure that this didn't happen again then I would say that it's worthwhile. But to claim that something was covered up because the words "terror" and "terrorist" weren't used immediately? Am I missing something, or am I correct in saying that Congress - our highly-paid, public servants - are wasting their time on something ridiculous yet again?

It keeps their base frothing at the mouth and in line. The *problem* is - the GOP base is shrinking. Both from people (like me) abandoning it over the last 20 years and from simple age and race demographics. The old jackasses are dying and the white supremacist twits can't breed fast enough. Anyone who can add and see that Main Street has been thrown under the bus for Wall St. should know to stay away (though Wall St. is steadily buying out the DEM side of the aisle, too).

Seriously, yes Benghazi was a muff of sorts. The stupidity is that *anyone* who remembers past last week is that there were dozens of such incidents over the last 10 years that went without a peep from these same nimrods.

[willx]

^ Stop ragging on Wall Street. They need love too.

[Vexx]

Wall St. doesn't "create jobs" in any significant way. In fact, they reward corporations for eliminating jobs. And that's the sea change here - figuring out how to multiple money without actually creating value or improving an economy by the use of financial instruments and extraction.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'm still a bit confused as to why Benghazi is such a big deal. I understand that it's being drawn out in an effort to score political points, but why would anyone in the public buy it? Particularly since the politicians' primary concern seems to be finding out who decided to call it a protest instead of a terrorist attack. Why does that matter?

If they said that some security procedure was missed or handled improperly, then I could understand the witch hunt and procedures analysis. If they wanted to discuss funding and ways to ensure that this didn't happen again then I would say that it's worthwhile. But to claim that something was covered up because the words "terror" and "terrorist" weren't used immediately? Am I missing something, or am I correct in saying that Congress - our highly-paid, public servants - are wasting their time on something ridiculous yet again?

"why Benghazi is such a big deal."
"why would anyone in the public buy it?"
"to claim that something was covered up because the words "terror" and "terrorist" weren't used immediately? Am I missing something?"

You are missing the context of the moment, and the timing of the falsified and manipulated reporting to protect the Administration's future.

The Administration was in a heated political battle, with one of their promoted strengths being the victorious campaign against terrorist opposition to the USA. Voters, swing voters of 2008 who were disappointed with continued involvement in Afghanistan and the Middle East in 2012 were being courted to repeat their vote for President Obama. The strategy was that these voters owed their vote to Obama, despite the continued war in Afghanistan, because the Obama Administration was claiming that their foreign policy had won the war on terror. The message to voters being that the Obama Administration has an obligation to remain in Afghanistan as a temporary (forgivable) concession, because the Obama Administration policies were resulting in a permanent (supportable) solution to the previous hostile attitudes violently expressed against the USA.

The Administration could not afford recognition that their foreign policy was ineffective.

The direction of the Arab Spring leadership fallout was headed to a more radicalized style of government in Egypt, and the direction of Libya was undetermined. The Obama Administration supported the opposition to Mummar Gaddafi and was framing the Libyan victory as a foreign policy victory. The introduction of troops and military assets in the Obama Administration's Libyan policy had already angered previous Obama supporters who opposed the U.S. entry into another foreign civil war. The Obama Administration policy actions undertaken without an approval vote of Congress was being viewed as arrogance and hypocrisy after the broken promises since 2008. The attack that resulted in the death of the Ambassador would have ravaged these pacifist voter's confidence in the Obama Administration's foreign policy, a risk the Administration could not allow.

The Obama Administration choose to covertly redirect the cause of the attack on a motive removed from foreign policy, and in the haste of the moment chose to redirect the motive to an unknown video of limited release and very limited public exposure. This redirection lasted until the election, until the swing voters who were already unhappy with President Obama's foreign policy in Libya were secure Democrat votes.

The deception did not start and stop at the introduction of the video as "the motive," it was paralleled with scrubbing of all references to hostile opposition resulting from the Obama Administration foreign policy actions in the Middle East. The word "terror" was replaced by "violence," as if the motive for these actions were unknown and ambiguous (when the Administration received reports both before, during, and after the attack that the violent faction taking action was a terrorist group). The entire deception was a (successful) effort to protect the pacifist voter who was already disappointed with broken promises and the prior involvement in Libya by the Obama Administration.

The failure of this deception would have resulted in a lost Presidential campaign, and the Obama Administration knew this risk was too great due to the timing and sensitivity of voter opposition to U.S. involvement in Libya and they chose the video deception to maintain their Democrat Party loyalty.

The deception and inaction (before, during and after the attack) was contemptible, more due to the motives than the actual acts, but the coverup and extended embrace that the video was the motive for the attack in Benghazi throughout the election debates and final days when the truth was known to the President is unacceptable.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Wall St. doesn't "create jobs" in any significant way. In fact, they reward corporations for eliminating jobs. And that's the sea change here - figuring out how to multiple money without actually creating value or improving an economy by the use of financial instruments and extraction.

That sounds very good and all, but my friend is an IT/management consultant and his primary job is eliminating jobs as well -- via automation, best practices and IT infrastructure. Obsolete jobs are obsolete. As a person I would likely sympathize with people out of work and miserable, but big picture, unneeded roles are unneeded .. and I don't care what whit that those roles are now gone.

Financial engineering in and of itself seldom creates value unless it removes inefficiencies or economic drag -- but the economic and financial system itself features importantly for businesses like GE to manage it's daily financing needs to "make stuff"

"Wall Street" and "Bankers" are not just stockbrokers, hedge funds and investment bankers (most people don't even have a basic comprehension of what investment bankers even actually do).

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by flying ^

The Administration was in a heated political battle, with one of their promoted strengths being the victorious campaign against terrorist opposition to the USA. Voters, swing voters of 2008 who were disappointed with continued involvement in Afghanistan and the Middle East in 2012 were being courted to repeat their vote for President Obama. The strategy was that these voters owed their vote to Obama, despite the continued war in Afghanistan, because the Obama Administration was claiming that their foreign policy had won the war on terror.

I don't know about this. It's certainly possible that someone in the government was thinking along the lines that you've mentioned, but I have a hard time believing that it represented the administration's efforts because it seems pretty out of touch with reality.

Case in point, those who voted for the Democrats - at least, those who I know (and I know many more of those than I do Republicans) - didn't care about the "war on terror." Most of us (I'm grouped in with this one) thought the entire idea of the "war on terror" was pretty stupid. Terror isn't a country or a person, so how do you win a war on it? It was a term that was coined under President Bush and most of the Democratic voters really didn't care about it. They simply wanted us to withdraw our troops, and while Obama moved much more slowly than people wanted on it, that's what he did.

Originally Posted by flying ^

The Obama Administration choose to covertly redirect the cause of the attack on a motive removed from foreign policy, and in the haste of the moment chose to redirect the motive to an unknown video of limited release and very limited public exposure. This redirection lasted until the election, until the swing voters who were already unhappy with President Obama's foreign policy in Libya were secure Democrat votes.

This line of reasoning doesn't work out. People didn't really care about what sparked the initial violence. Whether it was a sudden flash-mob over a video or whether it was a carefully planned attack in response to American actions, an American embassy was attacked. Why was an American embassy attacked, instead of some other country's embassy? It's because of the foreign policy we've taken over the past few years.

In other words, people already knew that our foreign policy was making us very unpopular in the Muslim world, and Democrats blamed former President Bush for that foreign policy (even if Obama didn't radically deviate from it). Trying to pin the embassy flare-up on a video would not have altered that view. As far as voters were concerned, Obama was safe. The motive that you've described doesn't really fit, unless you want to believe that Obama's team was really out of touch with American citizens. If you do believe that, practically every political analyst disagrees with you, as I've read nothing but praise and grudging admiration for how Obama's campaign operated.

Originally Posted by willx

That sounds very good and all, but my friend is an IT/management consultant and his primary job is eliminating jobs as well -- via automation, best practices and IT infrastructure. Obsolete jobs are obsolete. As a person I would likely sympathize with people out of work and miserable, but big picture, unneeded roles are unneeded .. and I don't care what whit that those roles are now gone.

Automation and technological development has resulted in a job shift and the creation of new jobs. Much of the financial sector seems to be involved with shipping jobs overseas or finding new ways to force people to do more for less.

[Vexx]

What Ledgem said, not necessary to repeat it as such. False conflation of issues.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Case in point, those who voted for the Democrats - at least, those who I know (and I know many more of those than I do Republicans) - didn't care about the "war on terror." Most of us (I'm grouped in with this one) thought the entire idea of the "war on terror" was pretty stupid.

Furthermore, with bin Laden dead, as far as I'm concerned, the mission in Afganistan is done. The remaining efforts against terrorism is merely to prevent it - as much as possible. If terror does happen (like Boston), it is to be minimized. Just simple, small bombings -- rather than complete destruction of whole buildings, etc.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

so how do you win a war on it?

A game with no endgame is dangerous; for it can perpetuate and be prolonged.

To date, this is the longest war ever endured by the U.S. The only other longest wars the U.S. participated in were the Vietnam War from 1964-1972, and the Iraq War from 2003-2011. Sadly, there was no true victory in either of those two wars. Unfortunately, the same unsuccessful outcome will be true with the Afghanistan War.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nake-m...b_3220799.html

After the Iraq War was ended, the question I have is: "OK, what did we get out of it?"

With Afganistan, OK. It was to completely destroy this country's capability to host large scale terrorist operations. Well, that's done, especially after bin Laden's death. So, it's time for troops to get back home; and the remainder of the job falls on monitoring and prevention.

[Ithekro]

Technically the US was involved in Vietnam since 1959.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

With Afganistan, OK. It was to completely destroy this country's capability to host large scale terrorist operations. Well, that's done, especially after bin Laden's death.

I wouldn't say it's done, but then I also don't think that it's possible to "destroy a country's capability to host large scale terrorist operations." If Afghanistan were more secure and prosperous then the chances of a terror group being able to take hold and operate would be very low, but that isn't a transformation that America can bring about. The Afghans need to do it for themselves.

That goes for just about every other country, as well. The biggest blunder that many Americans made (possibly even within our government) was the assumption that everyone on this planet wants to be just like us, and that they would do it if only they weren't repressed. Remove the dictator, help to ensure that at least one fair election is held, and then the country will automatically become a democracy in our image. Hopefully we all know better now.