• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Brad Sallows said:
Dissent is patriotic. I've read that somewhere, repeatedly, although it seems to come and go in 4 to 8 year cycles.
Click to expand...
Come on Brad, her repeating Russian disinformation verbatim isn’t Patriotic or dissent.

She should have been UCMJ’d back when she was still in the service and ranting about CIA funded BioLabs in Ukraine.
 
lenaitch said:
I'm surprised LAPD is still driving Crown Victoria interceptors. They haven't been made for 14 years.
Click to expand...

For reference to the discussion of the demise of Crown Victoria,

lethalLemon

Thread 'Crown Victoria laid to rest'

It is a sad day for many of North America's Police Departments who rely on the brute force, rapid acceleration, and spaciousness of the Crown Victoria Police Interceptors...

An old article nonetheless but still relevant, text in yellow - my additions:

Ford to retire Crown Vics; police cars to get makeover
By Brian Freskos - STAR News Online

If a cop has pulled you over anytime since 1992, chances are the officer was driving a Ford Crown Victoria.

It has long been a defining symbol of police, one that proved its worth time and again in the fight against crime. Now...
Click to expand...
 
KevinB said:
Come on Brad, her repeating Russian disinformation verbatim isn’t Patriotic or dissent.

She should have been UCMJ’d back when she was still in the service and ranting about CIA funded BioLabs in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I mean to mock the people who switch labels to suit their political priors. I don't think it's patriotic or unpatriotic, but arguments for ending wars that hawks want inevitably are described in terms ranging from unpatriotic to treasonous. The people who argued against taking down Hussein and then argued for getting out early were treated abjectly in their time, but their utilitarian calculations turned out to be correct. Ditto Libya. I have already guessed that history will conclude the Ukraine war has gone on longer than it should have, given the disparity of forces and the wills of those with the power to meaningfully intervene. It's a righteous war for Ukraine, but supporters seem determined only to give them enough support to prolong it indefinitely without decisive result.

The point is that the evaluation of "patriotic" or "dissent" or "treasonous" or "agent of X" is just a political stance based on for/against.
 
Sorry. Behind a paywall.

Robyn Urback, far from a raging lefty, says if one was paying attention, Trump campaigned for chaos and the erosion of America’s liberal inheritance. People should not be surprised.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Opinion: Donald Trump campaigned on eroding democracy. Now, he’s just fulfilling his promises

What’s happening in Los Angeles and in the U.S. more broadly is galling, but it shouldn’t be a shock – Americans are getting exactly what they voted for
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
The President has already used the word “insurrectionists” to describe protesters on the ground in L.A., and has even gone so far as to muse about arresting the state’s Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom. The situation could explode suddenly – dramatically, catastrophically – which would give Mr. Trump further pretext to engage in his most authoritarian fantasies, which could even mean assuming federal control of the state or delaying future midterm elections. 
That would sound like a hysterical prediction if the U.S. government hadn’t already enabled masked, plain-clothed agents to snatch people off the streets; if it wasn’t trying to deport someone who is legally in the U.S. over a college newspaper op-ed; if it wasn’t openly defying court orders; and if it wasn’t musing about arresting political adversaries, planning a military parade for the President’s birthday and – oh yeah – calling in the National Guard, over state objections, to quell dissent. When things are on fire, you can give yourself permission to do all sorts of things. That’s exactly what the U.S. President is doing – and it’s exactly what he promised.
Click to expand...

He said explicitly during the campaign that he would not hold back on sending troops to dismantle protests like he did following the death of George Floyd in 2020. 
“Next time,” he told a crowd in 2023, “I’m not waiting.” He spoke openly to Fox News back in October about using the National Guard or military to deal with “the enemy from within.” Mr. Trump was frustrated in his first term by objections from then-defense secretary Mark Esper to having U.S. troops patrolling American streets, and he has been clear – both in his statements, and his appointments of only the most obsequious minions to his inner circle – that he won’t be constrained this time. Nothing that leaks from Mr. Trump’s lips is ever rhetorical.
None of this should be a surprise. In fact, very little of what Mr. Trump has done in the first few months of his second term should come as a shock. He said he was going to implement tariffs, and he did. He said he was going to gut government agencies, and he has.
Click to expand...
 
lenaitch said:
I'm surprised LAPD is still driving Crown Victoria interceptors. They haven't been made for 14 years.
Click to expand...
Sniff they’re beautiful.

I remember hearing a few services in the southern U.S. bought shitloads towards the need of the production run and basically stored them in mothballs for later use- the climate down there’s conducive to it. Sorta like Davis-Monthan AFB but even more wonderful and magical.
 
HavokFour said:
7/10 is pretty good when you consider Russia has been actively poisoning the information wells that (all) AI pull from.
Click to expand...
Here's Grok's take on the same video using the same question as above: 6/10 - highlights mine ...
  • The video by Tulsi Gabbard, as Director of National Intelligence, emphasizes the catastrophic risks of nuclear war, drawing from her recent visit to Hiroshima and highlighting historical and potential future impacts of nuclear weapons.
  • Gabbard's rhetoric aligns with her past statements on nuclear threats, which have been criticized for echoing Russian narratives, particularly in the context of her comments on U.S. involvement in Ukraine and her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
  • The video's focus on the dangers of nuclear war and the actions of "political elites and warmongers" mirrors themes often present in Russian disinformation campaigns, which aim to undermine Western unity and justify Russian actions by portraying the West as aggressive.
  • Russian disinformation during the invasion of Ukraine has included narratives that attack Ukraine's legitimacy and accuse Western powers of pushing for conflict, themes that resonate with Gabbard's warnings about nuclear escalation.
  • The video's simulation of a nuclear attack on San Francisco and the emphasis on the lack of access to shelters for regular people could be interpreted as amplifying fear and distrust in Western leadership, a tactic consistent with Russian propaganda strategies.
  • Gabbard's past has been scrutinized for potential alignment with Russian interests, including her opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine and her comments on biolabs in Ukraine, which were echoed by Russian state media.
  • The likelihood of the video being influenced by Russian disinformation or misinformation is rated at 6 out of 10, given the alignment with Russian narratives and the context of her previous statements, though there is no direct evidence of collaboration with Russian intelligence.
Click to expand...
Interesting line from the video: "... as we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers. Perhaps it's because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won't have access to ..."

Wonder exactly who these "political elites" and "warmongers" might be?

Some of the commentariat's already saying this is essentially a shout-out to anyone opposing helping UKR, offering a narrative track about why it's a good idea not to make things tense between nuclear powers like, say, the U.S. and USSR 2.0. YMMV ...
 
Last edited:
The Bread Guy said:
Here's Grok's take on the same video using the same question as above: 6/10 - highlights mine ...
Click to expand...
Chicken or egg, or neither? Are anti-war advocates echoing Russian themes, or is Russian propaganda echoing anti-war advocates (using the principle of misleading your enemy in a direction he already wants to go), or are the themes stand-alone and obvious and thus occur to everyone irrespective of whether they share interests? "Influence" implies cause-effect, not mere correlation. That Grok output echoes some of the same bullshit lines of reasoning used to attack anti-war advocates over Iraq. Of course there are people in liberal countries who are going to be critical, and in liberal countries they have that freedom. Of course tyrants are going to seize on those expressions of dissent as wedges. If we start to politicize dissent and deprecate those who might undermine "unity" (and how the f*ck can any self-imagined liberal insist on "unity" without seeing what he has become), we become more illiberal. People ought to stop falling into that totalitarian trap.

I understand Russia's view of the world and will talk and write about it. They know what they would do if they were in NATO's position (ie. seize territory) and won't disregard that suspicion of NATO. I understand their reasons for wanting Crimea, which ties into their reasons for wanting the eastern Ukraine. Russia has no right to any of that, but that isn't going to prevent or end war. I advocate either escalating on Ukraine's side and winning quickly, or compelling Ukraine to cut its losses and seek peace for territory. If we're serious about supporting Ukraine, we then grant accession to NATO well before Russia can reasonably resume hostilities. Part of my reasoning is utilitarian (mostly people, but also property).

Calculations have to accept the reality of Russian paranoia and aggression. Those aren't just "safety concerns" issues to be dismissed as the ravings of "nuclear war" cranks.
 
Here is another commentary on the downward spiral on the right. It didn't arise out of nothing (ie. cause-effect). I doubt it can be unilaterally fixed on the right, unless the next iteration of Republicans restores "decent establishment Republican" control. For that to happen, they have to prove they won't roll over for Democrats on issues that matter to the new Republican voting coalition. One of those issues is immigration enforcement.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Here is another commentary on the downward spiral on the right. It didn't arise out of nothing (ie. cause-effect). I doubt it can be unilaterally fixed on the right, unless the next iteration of Republicans restores "decent establishment Republican" control. For that to happen, they have to prove they won't roll over for Democrats on issues that matter to the new Republican voting coalition. One of those issues is immigration enforcement.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link!
 
Brad Sallows said:
Chicken or egg, or neither? Are anti-war advocates echoing Russian themes, or is Russian propaganda echoing anti-war advocates (using the principle of misleading your enemy in a direction he already wants to go), or are the themes stand-alone and obvious and thus occur to everyone irrespective of whether they share interests? "Influence" implies cause-effect, not mere correlation. That Grok output echoes some of the same bullshit lines of reasoning used to attack anti-war advocates over Iraq. Of course there are people in liberal countries who are going to be critical, and in liberal countries they have that freedom. Of course tyrants are going to seize on those expressions of dissent as wedges. If we start to politicize dissent and deprecate those who might undermine "unity" (and how the f*ck can any self-imagined liberal insist on "unity" without seeing what he has become), we become more illiberal. People ought to stop falling into that totalitarian trap.

I understand Russia's view of the world and will talk and write about it. They know what they would do if they were in NATO's position (ie. seize territory) and won't disregard that suspicion of NATO. I understand their reasons for wanting Crimea, which ties into their reasons for wanting the eastern Ukraine. Russia has no right to any of that, but that isn't going to prevent or end war. I advocate either escalating on Ukraine's side and winning quickly, or compelling Ukraine to cut its losses and seek peace for territory. If we're serious about supporting Ukraine, we then grant accession to NATO well before Russia can reasonably resume hostilities. Part of my reasoning is utilitarian (mostly people, but also property).

Calculations have to accept the reality of Russian paranoia and aggression. Those aren't just "safety concerns" issues to be dismissed as the ravings of "nuclear war" cranks.
Click to expand...
Sorry I’m of the:
IMG_0508.jpeg

IMG_0509.jpeg
 
KevinB said:
Sorry I’m of the:
Click to expand...
As am I. It doesn't require toleration of McCarthyism or following the prescriptions and rantings of the habitual foolish injudicious self-aggrandizing conspiratorially-minded warmongers who write at places like the Bulwark. The McCarthy-ites were dealing with at least some genuinely committed pro-Russian people. The rest amounts to a stain on the nation, which should not be repeated. I am unconvinced that everyone who doesn't march in step with the hawks is necessarily marching in step with enemies of the US. From the "with us or against us" cheerleaders, I expect no better.

Anyone who really believes the next serious contest is with China ought to be relentlessly conserving and increasing resources for that and not be side-tracked into slowly bleeding treasure off into a war the proponents are determined only to prolong and not to win.
 
Developing news out of the Middle East is that US embassies and based are being placed on High Alert. I've been reading speculation the nuclear talks have broken down and Israel and the USA might attack Iran or vice versa. Nothing to confirm that. Seems to be rapidly developing. Ill look for an actual source after work.
 
PrairieFella said:
Developing news out of the Middle East is that US embassies and based are being placed on High Alert. I've been reading speculation the nuclear talks have broken down and Israel and the USA might attack Iran or vice versa. Nothing to confirm that. Seems to be rapidly developing. Ill look for an actual source after work.
Click to expand...

Good distraction, at least for a while, for the LA and other US city rioting shenanigans.
 
PrairieFella said:
Developing news out of the Middle East is that US embassies and based are being placed on High Alert. I've been reading speculation the nuclear talks have broken down and Israel and the USA might attack Iran or vice versa. Nothing to confirm that. Seems to be rapidly developing. Ill look for an actual source after work.
Click to expand...

First wave to beat them down. Second wave to bounce the rubble...

Iran warns of ‘proportionate’ response as IAEA mulls censure​

Iran-US talks over Iranian nuclear file are less friendly and Israel is threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear sites.
Behrouz Kamalvandi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the country will have a “proportionate” response to any action against it by Western countries, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“If we wanted to reduce our cooperation, the agency would not be able to carry out its duties. We have cooperated beyond our duties, and if the agency does not appreciate that, we will degrade cooperation to its normal levels,” Kamalvandi told Iranian state television late Monday.

His comments come as the IAEA Board of Governors is holding a five-day meeting in Vienna, with Iran’s nuclear programme once again in the spotlight as Tehran is accused of “non-compliance” with nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Backed by the United States, the three European powers still party to Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal – France, Germany and the United Kingdom – are pushing for yet another censure resolution against Iran for insufficient cooperation. The latest resolution, however, could prove the most serious in two decades and signal a shift toward escalated confrontation.

www.aljazeera.com

Iran warns of ‘proportionate’ response as IAEA mulls censure

Iran-US talks over Iranian nuclear file are less friendly and Israel is threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear sites.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top