The Cheney clip would not be shown on Fox these days...so limited ability for the current Admin to see it.Talk about Social Conditioning and Mental Programming. But this CBS host got called to the table in her interview in a Yuuuge way:
Full Transcript:
MARGARET BRENNAN: He was just doing a limited strike on Iran.
SEN. SANDERS: Oh, just a limited strike- well, I'm sorry. I just didn't know that it's okay to simply attack another country with bombs just a limited strike- that's an act of warfare. So two points. That will set off a conflagration all over the Middle East. If you think the war is either- the war in Iraq, Margaret was a disaster I believe from the bottom of my heart that the war- a war with Iran would be even worse, more loss of life never ending war in that region, massive instability. We're talking about, we have been in Afghanistan now for eighteen years. This thing will never end. So I will do everything I can number one to stop a war with Iran. And number two here's an important point. Let's remember what we learned in civics when we were kids. It is the United States Congress, under our Constitution, that has war-making authority not the president of the United States. If he attacks Iran in my view that would be unconstitutional.
For those of you that have never seen this famous short interview clip of Dick Cheney in 1994 describing why a war in Iraq would be a total disaster and lead to an endless quagmire (he did so very thoroughly and in only 1 1/2 minutes because he was so certain of it) I highly recommend it because it is once again very relevant. Someone needs to play this clip for our current administration:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
We always underestimate tech change. As Paul Erdos has said "the Russians invented television in order to destroy American education."
There is certainly enough hubris among us to allow plentiful errors. I am far from perfect myself, no doubt. It is certainly easy to see my words about MBZ as being about MBS and I confused them. I didn't. In Abu Dhabi tradition age itself counts. Without doubt my assertion of him as a "kid" is a reflection of my view of his strategic abilities, not his age. Powerful-indeed. Firepower-lots of it. One thing both MBZ and MBS share is an inherently unstable internal political situation that has been living for decades by plentiful economic support to drown opposition. For both that has mostly worked. Sheikh Zayed set up the UAE with his largess when only Sheikh Rashid in Dubai had even a vestige of relative influence. When Dubai overextended itself with buildings, shipyards, Emirates, airports, huge shopping centers, and all the rest Abu Dhabi exacted a very high price for the bailout. As for the others Sharjah has been adept at straddling the fence and the others are inconsequential.
In all that MBZ is trying to ride some tigers of his own since there is a very conservative political base from peers of his fathers generation. Due to that conflict, almost entirely unobserved by Westerners who are totally deceived by gimmicks like Masdar, Guggenheim and the Species Conservation Fund. That stuff is for show while he and the infant MBS play with ways to harm non-Royal influences. Make no mistake, the Sunni/Shia things is very real, but the fundamental issue is the risk of Royal family loss of power.
Master politicians of a generation ago (e.g. Sheikh Zayed, King Fahd (pre-senility), Khomeini, Hussein) all rode tightropes and managed to stave off gigantic challenges. Those gradually died and their legacy collapsed through four events:
First: The Lebanese Civil War beginning in 1975. That seemed local but the Lebanese intelligencia at the time formed the administrative and advisory backbone for the region. With the war, the Maronites swiftly lost heir favored status and suddenly the Sunni/Shia, christian/jewish, Druze/Kurd tolerances came under pressure. Kurds took over a bit of the Maronite role in Gulf business advice but the Iranians suddenly lost their key advantages in Beirut.
Second: Observing all this Saddam Hussein jumped against Iran just as;
Third: the whole region was worried about the Russians invading Afghanistan, terrified because the US sought revenge by sending Saudi radicals like Osama bin Laden and fomented a contagion of reactions that led to all kinds of movements from the Islamic Brotherhood to Al Qaeda;
Fourth: Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and the US lost all sanity, as did Saudi.
Just after all that happened the old guys gradually panicked and became senile or died. The 'kids' as their successors have been quite inept just as leadership everywhere has entered periods of darkness which ended out producing people like:
MBZ, MBS, DJT and BN who outdo each other with vindictiveness and near-total incompetence. That then now must compete with Erdogan, new Kurdish kids, while Iraq, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka are ceasing to be the reliably apolitical sources of labor that they heretofore were.
All of that stuff and more are the backdrop. My characterization of the current crop of idiots and fools as 'kids' reflects my opinion that they have collectively destroyed a fragile period of relative peace in the early 1970's by thinking they could squash open communication and open secrets. That entire alphabet list above has brought us today.
All of them have missed one thing: there is no way to hide today. Why? Al Jazeera only reflected what had already happened when the Iranian revolution happened almost totally with telephone calls, followed by the Internet and cellular telephones that opened the entire Middle East to increased ethnic/religious/social identity. The genie cannot get back in the bottle. You'd think Trump would get that.
Once again I must point out that I do have strong views on these issues but by no means do I have enough knowledge to be as certain as I am sounding.
On the other hand, while working in Iran I called the upcoming revolution formally which gave me considerable notoriety in some circles for several decades. I only did it because of wild coincidence. One close friend was Iranian living in France (Khomeini lived there) and another was my Farsi teacher who was active in the local resistance. Then was the day I discovered that an Iranian cabinet minister i met with spoke poorer Farsi than did I, and mine was not good. That convinced me that the end of the Shah was nigh.
Similar techniques are the ones I still use. They have obvious flaws and are woefully ill-informed in many respects. That is what I do, so consider that when you judge whether I have any credibility at all.
If it would be worthwhile I do have a long story about what is happening in Yemen and why. Sadly, that one has no solution coming other than more Gulf disarray, IMHO.
Elsewhere, I've explained Tillerson's incredible scam to cash out of hundreds of millions of dollars of ExxonMobil *restricted stock* (which he wasn't supposed to be able to sell for ten years) tax free. He got away with the heist. Part of the plan was getting fired a few days after he'd been Secretary of State for a year. Very exact planning, executed perfectly. Quite a heist.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the 2019 Investors' Roundtable
A lot of brain research shows the relatively virgin minds of babies have some built-in strategies for learning. For example a study showing they anticipate a ball reappearing in a trajectory after being thrown behind a blind. I will grant and have always believed we are at our most productive and intelligent when children before we are spoiled by education (experience). [Credit to Ivan Ilych on de-schooling.] For more on the remarkable abilities of children, cf Jean Piaget. Jean Piaget's Life and Contributions to Psychology. A sample: "He is also credited as a pioneer of the constructivist theory, which suggests that people actively construct their knowledge of the world based on the interactions between their ideas and their experiences."
I distinctly remember being corrected by my second grade teacher in 1942 for drawing a picture of the sun after outlining its surface with a black crayon. I also remember her having distinctly protuberant bumps in the right places proving, early on, what a sick puppy I became.
Early impressions can sometimes become obsessions. That is the trap of innocence. It remains true, if I may now throw Hegel at you, "The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk." Now I quit this on this thread—you've been Hegelized! Which reminds me of the closing line of one of John Dewey's hour long disquisitions on the word 'that.' "Well, that's enough of that."
A lot of brain research shows the relatively virgin minds of babies have some built-in strategies for learning. For example a study showing they anticipate a ball reappearing in a trajectory after being thrown behind a blind. I will grant and have always believed we are at our most productive and intelligent when children before we are spoiled by education (experience). [Credit to Ivan Ilych on de-schooling.] For more on the remarkable abilities of children, cf Jean Piaget. Jean Piaget's Life and Contributions to Psychology. A sample: "He is also credited as a pioneer of the constructivist theory, which suggests that people actively construct their knowledge of the world based on the interactions between their ideas and their experiences."
I distinctly remember being corrected by my second grade teacher in 1942 for drawing a picture of the sun after outlining its surface with a black crayon. I also remember her having distinctly protuberant bumps in the right places proving, early on, what a sick puppy I became.
Early impressions can sometimes become obsessions. That is the trap of innocence. It remains true, if I may now throw Hegel at you, "The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk." Now I quit this on this thread—you've been Hegelized! Which reminds me of the closing line of one of John Dewey's hour long disquisitions on the word 'that.' "Well, that's enough of that."
Sorry, I was unclear. Everything is being done to counter the stonewalling and generally illegal behavior on the part of the administration. The Kabuki theater of committee hearings with empty chairs and such are the thing that are for the courts. Courts are hesitant to rule on disputes between the Legislative and Executive unless the party appealing to the courts can demonstrate they have tried everything and are out of options.
The cases that have made it to the courts thus far, the courts have moved quickly in Congress' favor. I expect that once the court rulings start coming down things will move quickly, though Congress might have to start locking up administration members who refuse to testify. One thing I'd like to see, but probably won't happen, is a bunch of cabinet officials dragged into committee hearings in orange jumpsuits. Even if they refuse to say anything, the pictures of cabinet officials in prison jumpsuits on the news will likely go viral, even among those who are trying to avoid the news.
I went and saw the original post on the investors thread. The poster was claiming that younger, less experienced people are prone to confirmation bias, but that isn't an age thing. In the US political debate some of the worst confirmation bias is among Fox News viewers who have an average age in their 60s.
As for how the brain grows, learns, and ages and what can be done to improve things later in life, that's a fascinating subject. But probably too off topic here.
So, I didn't watch the debates; I read some of the news responses.
Looks like Biden made a fool of himself. Good, IMO. He is wrongheaded on policy and out-of-touch.
Harris, Warren, Castro, and Buttegieg all looked impressive (in that order), apparently. Good.
Bernie has completely changed the conversation, so that everyone except Biden is talking about the ideas he articulated last campaign. Excellent.
Looks like Biden made a fool of himself. Good, IMO. He is wrongheaded on policy and out-of-touch.
Harris, Warren, Castro, and Buttegieg all looked impressive (in that order), apparently. Good.
Bernie has completely changed the conversation, so that everyone except Biden is talking about the ideas he articulated last campaign. Excellent.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Buttegieg did get tripped up by Harris on the police/race issue. I thought Gillibrand stood out as well, surprised more people aren't talking about her.
For those who cancelled their NYT subscription, here is an eloquent analysis.
Opinion | And Now, the Dream of a Harris-Buttigieg Ticket
Again, an old school (pols deciding in smoke-filled rooms) preference. The top of the ticket must still be a woman. Now either Warren or Harris. For diversity and appeal to a particular or generic minority, in second place Booker, Castro or Buttigieg. If Harris, Buttigieg. Biden as first choice for Trump is becoming clearer. My generation is a loser. As the graffiti of the Vietnam War noted, "nostalgia isn't what it used to be." We must all thank Bernie. He started the revolution and will make a great Defense Secretary. (Just to excite you about the possibilities.) Jay Inslee for Energy or EPA, etc.
Off topic. What about Nominee announcing Cabinet picks to campaign with her, a la British tradition? (After severe vetting scrub.)
Opinion | And Now, the Dream of a Harris-Buttigieg Ticket
Again, an old school (pols deciding in smoke-filled rooms) preference. The top of the ticket must still be a woman. Now either Warren or Harris. For diversity and appeal to a particular or generic minority, in second place Booker, Castro or Buttigieg. If Harris, Buttigieg. Biden as first choice for Trump is becoming clearer. My generation is a loser. As the graffiti of the Vietnam War noted, "nostalgia isn't what it used to be." We must all thank Bernie. He started the revolution and will make a great Defense Secretary. (Just to excite you about the possibilities.) Jay Inslee for Energy or EPA, etc.
Off topic. What about Nominee announcing Cabinet picks to campaign with her, a la British tradition? (After severe vetting scrub.)
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
How did last night make that "clearer"? Unless you meant to say "is not the first choice".
I think he means that Trump would prefer to run against Biden than most of the others.
I've said before, I think Trump really wants to have Biden as his adversary, since he would be his weakest opponent. He doesn't even recognize the others as adversaries—his mistake. Putin is smart enough to help Biden in primaries as he did with Hillary against Bernie. Maybe at the G20 he's given Trump the word now if not a repeat.
Edit: Clearly the best choice for Trump if the Dems, as some are, will focus only on experience as an officeholder to combat Trump. It matters what that experience was as Joe reminded us last night and will, unfortunately do so again. It will be hard and perhaps impossible, especially if the Senate remains Republican, but the candidates already have such deep experience and variety of talent, cleaning out the Trump garbage can be done.
Joe like "fake" leaders sticks up a moistened finger to see which way the wind is blowing among his friends indoors, rather than in full sun with voters and thinkers, daily. Not true of Warren, ever in public life and Harris is learning and getting better. As a thinker, campaigner, and person I think Mayor Pete has more talent I've seen in a politician. But he will see his time and I'm certain he knows it. Critics make fun of Polonius but the bromide is apt. "To thine own self be true."
Last edited:
Amateur media analysis.
From Trump's perspective the bias of the media is shown in the first moves of moderators in the recent debates: favoring Warren with first position Wednesday and Sanders Thursday. From a traditional media perspective they are frontrunners on the left Democratic policy scale and capable of comprehensive policy perspectives so potentially most newsworthy and it was a night for challenging the status quo a natural fit for the Democrats. Besides, "as the enemy of the people" it is time for the media to fight back.
I was frustrated by the moderators and questioners until I realized their job was to be Fox News. Chuck Todd was the best at it because he is a natural fit in that role and spoke more than some of the candidates because he likes to talk to star. Rachel was a disappointment because she showed her professional journalist side, calmly presenting the Fox position with little elaboration. (I'm sure she used some Listerine during breaks.
)
I watched the CNN postmortems each night. Their panelists were a Progressives delight. Often really funny and right on in interpretation. Van Jones is a national treasure and a really funny guy. Shyly demure after a particularly well put jab. They really enjoyed themselves and watchers got a boost too.
Putin and the Republicans in a just world will be clearly outmatched. "And so it goes."
From Trump's perspective the bias of the media is shown in the first moves of moderators in the recent debates: favoring Warren with first position Wednesday and Sanders Thursday. From a traditional media perspective they are frontrunners on the left Democratic policy scale and capable of comprehensive policy perspectives so potentially most newsworthy and it was a night for challenging the status quo a natural fit for the Democrats. Besides, "as the enemy of the people" it is time for the media to fight back.
I was frustrated by the moderators and questioners until I realized their job was to be Fox News. Chuck Todd was the best at it because he is a natural fit in that role and spoke more than some of the candidates because he likes to talk to star. Rachel was a disappointment because she showed her professional journalist side, calmly presenting the Fox position with little elaboration. (I'm sure she used some Listerine during breaks.
)I watched the CNN postmortems each night. Their panelists were a Progressives delight. Often really funny and right on in interpretation. Van Jones is a national treasure and a really funny guy. Shyly demure after a particularly well put jab. They really enjoyed themselves and watchers got a boost too.
Putin and the Republicans in a just world will be clearly outmatched. "And so it goes."
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
My mistake, I misinterpreted it as Biden being the first choice for the Democrats to take on Trump.
Absolutely no problem. I think we both know where we're coming from and vice, whatever the other word was. We have a lot of company, here, which is delightful.
I didn't watch the debates, but watched some of MSNBC's "pre-game". Steve Kornaki summed up why Trump fears Biden and why Biden is the front runner. Biden is not popular among younger Democrats nor liberal Democrats, but among the moderate Democrats and conservative leaning Democrats (more common in red states), Biden is clearly their favorite. Biden also becomes more popular the older the voter. Finally he's the big favorite about African-Americans, especially older African-Americans.
Eugene Robinson pointed out that African-American voters, especially older ones are pragmatic, they go with whoever they think is most electable.
Rick Wilson who knows red state and purple state politics possibly better than any Democrat has pointed out that Biden polls far better than anybody else in the Democratic field in red and purple states because to the independents, who are usually more moderate, and the moderate and conservative Democrats he's the least scary of the candidates. Wilson has also pointed out that Democrats have made the same mistakes over and over again by making the mistake that all voters who are considering Democratic candidates are fairly left leaning. That's common in urban centers, but drops off dramatically when you get out into the suburbs and drops off even further in rural areas.
Any one of the 24 people running for the Democratic nomination is going to win most of the Northeast, the West coast states, Hawaii, and a few other states. Even Maryann Williamson would win those states without any effort. The question is who is going to win the Upper Midwest and has a shot at making Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, and some other states competitive. So far Biden is the one who is polling best in those states.
The debate might move the needle some. Harris had an excellent debate night and Biden sounded a bit whiny in defense of her comments about racism. Buttigeig had a bad week back home, and O'Rourke flamed out, but the other candidates who were polling above a couple percent all did OK.
I've gone into this without any clear preference. My #1 criteria is a candidate who will be better for the US than Trump and I think the whole field probably would, though some of the weaker candidates would only be a marginal improvement, but their chances of winning the nomination are nil. So the primary criteria is not a concern.
My #2 criteria is who will have the easiest time beating Trump. The bigger the margin of victory, the easier time the new president will have fixing all the damage Trump left in his wake. At the moment the polls show Biden is the best at this because he appeals the most to the middle.
Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses. Warren and Harris are probably the best communicators in the field. Both are pretty good at breaking down complex issues. Biden, Harris, and Warren are, I think the most effective fighters in the field. Klobachar can fight, but she's a bit too much like Hillary, comes across as vindictive rather than going for a goal.
In a political fight Biden's strength is political knife fights. He can stand up to Trump's war of words and cut him back. Warren can control a situation like a good classroom teacher. She takes charge. Harris can do both.
Of all the candidates I would probably get the most Scheudenfreude watching Harris debate Trump.
The Democrats running for president in states with a Republican senator up for re-election should be switching to the Senate races now. If the Republican party stumbles going into the election, those seats will be vulnerable and a strong Democratic candidate can take the seat. Taking the Senate is the toughest job in 2020.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Not really. They have always voted with the machine - because they take their cues from AA leaders, who support establishment Dems (that's where the gravy is).
I'm afraid, just like Trump before him (and now Boris !), Biden will just sail through all the scandals and we will finally have the choice between two racist, sexist, narcissists who don't think twice before sexually abusing their victims.
Boomers are bent upon destroying the world.
Last edited:
The Democratic Party is not dominated by lunatics. I'm not so sure of the Republicans, certainly not at the top. The bulk of Progressive programs are supported by polls within the 70 percent range. Supporting and campaigning on implementing these programs would seem to me a pragmatic approach—a winning strategy.
Anything Republican politicians want is dictated by the money boys so lunatic charges of socialism (meaning Leninism or Stalinism) will be called lunatic like Reagan's descrying medicare and welfare queens. What Progressives are calling for is christian capitalism and Buttigieg opened the door on that argument about religion last night. More to come might well persuade the oldest mainline African American. What was MLKJr. talking about toward the end? Economic justice. That's why he had to be killed.
Anything Republican politicians want is dictated by the money boys so lunatic charges of socialism (meaning Leninism or Stalinism) will be called lunatic like Reagan's descrying medicare and welfare queens. What Progressives are calling for is christian capitalism and Buttigieg opened the door on that argument about religion last night. More to come might well persuade the oldest mainline African American. What was MLKJr. talking about toward the end? Economic justice. That's why he had to be killed.
There was a strain of Christianity, the Social Gospel, that caught on in Canada and not the US.
Canada's Father of Medicare (and grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland) was Tommy Douglas. He was the leader of the first socialist government elected in North America. He was a Baptist minister before entering politics.
Voters generally have no idea who's "electable". Sanders was more electable than Clinton (as polling made clear, *very* consistently for the *entire* election season), yet pundits kept acting as if Clinton was more "electable", and primary voters bought it.
Biden, with his fond support for segregation, his mocking of sexual harrassment complaints, his history of being in the pocket of the banking industry, his responsibility for the student loan debt crisis, -- Biden is practically unelectable. Biden's also known for "gaffes", and while they're usually laughed off, he's never had this much of a spotlight on him. Trump's a total hypocrite and will happily use all of that against Biden.
Thank goodness the debates are making Biden's weakness clearer and clearer to people.
Won't last. I hope the debates help make that clear.
It should, and this is why we need early debates.
Likewise.
Biden stands a serious risk of endangering the US in the same way Obama did: by selling out to the Republicans in the name of "bipartisanship". This would radicalize the populace even more and bring us even closer to violent revolution.
Less than 14% of the youngest voting generation. "Gen Z", are Republican. But we're seeing the worrying signs from rising "disinterest in politics" numbers, combined with rising interest in direct action, that they -- and Millennials, Oregon Trail Generation, and GenX before them -- are deciding that electoral politics is ineffective, and it's time to pursue politics by other means. If Biden becomes President and sells out to the undemocratic, extremely unpopular Republicans, this will increase. "Politics by other means" looks more and more likely as each year passes with the government being nonresponsive to things which vast supermajorities of the public want, like Medicare for All (desired by a majority of Republicans last I checked), or cannabis legalization, or student loan forgiveness. Biden is the only Democratic candidate who is likely to defy the will of the people in the name of "bipartisanship". He is therefore the only one likely to bring the US closer to the brink of civil war.
Except Biden.
This is BS, and there is no middle. You really have to go look at the studies of the electorate. Let me repeat: THERE IS NO MIDDLE. It's a myth.
The independents -- the largest growing group of voters -- fall into three groups. The first, quite large, is a strange combination of what are considered hard-left and hard-right views -- "let everyone own private arsenals of assault rifles and give everyone Medicare" is a surprisingly common viewpoint, for example. There are two other groups of independents: left-wingers who think the Democratic Party is corrupt, and right-wingers who think the Republican Party is corrupt. Each of the Democratic candidates could get some of each of these groups, but Biden will get the fewest. His history with paid-for bills sponsored by the banking industry stinks of corruption, and his views are quintessentially establishment even on issues where the hard left and the hard right agree (and the establishment disagrees).
In my opinion, Biden is flat out coasting on name recognition because most people haven't been paying attention. Nothing more. This is a weak position to be in. Hopefully the debates will fix this by knocking Biden out of the race. Someone with this bad a record, this out of touch with the public, who is gaffe-prone is a really poor nomination choice.
I'd be very happy with either Warren or Harris. Or both.
He fell to Harris already. Weak.
Agree, but note that some don't want to be Senators and would be bad at it (Steve Bullock has no interest in being in the Senate; he likes being an administrator).
- Status
Similar threads
