2026 American Political (ob-?)Scene

Recumbentibus said:
You are totally unbelievable dude.

Chris has actually admitted, in a link I provided to training the Khmer Rouge.
It's all over the internet.
He wouldn't know who he was training.... seriously ?
So I know you are claiming plausible deniability ?
Click to expand...
I know a thing or two about SF and training of foreign soldiers. Except for the patch on their uniform, I would not know who the hell these people were, especially when I don't speak the language, and all Chris Ryan had to go on is a bunch of people in pyjamas.

And I find it EXTREMELY interesting that Ryan only came out in 2008 when Pilger's film CAMBODIA: THE BETRAYAL came out in 1990. It doesn't take a genius to know who'd follow whom, especially AFTER Pilger discredited himself.

I am not wrong. Ryan, as a historical source, is NOT reliable, especially when he did NOT PUBLICLY come out to support Pilger. And Pilger DID NOT sought him out to re-assert his claims. Precisely because he knows Ryan's story does not correlate with known facts. 1981 vs 1983.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
I know a thing or two about SF and training of foreign soldiers. Except for the patch on their uniform, I would not know who the hell these people were, especially when I don't speak the language, and all Chris Ryan had to go on is a bunch of people in pyjamas.

And I find it EXTREMELY interesting that Ryan only came out in 2008 when Pilger's film CAMBODIA: THE BETRAYAL came out in 1990. It doesn't take a genius to know who'd follow whom, especially AFTER Pilger discredited himself.

I am not wrong. Ryan, as a historical source, is NOT reliable, especially when he did NOT PUBLICLY come out to support Pilger. And Pilger DID NOT sought him out to re-assert his claims. Precisely because he knows Ryan's story does not correlate with known facts. 1981 vs 1983.
Click to expand...

Dude, no matter what I say, what evidence I will present, you are never gonna admit the truth.
How did John Pilger know to seek out Chris Ryan ?
Do you believe he knew who all the SAS troops that were sent to train the Khmer Rouge and their allies were ? ..... seriously ?

Google

" Yes, Chris Ryan is credible regarding this deployment: he personally confirmed that his SAS team was sent to South East Asia in the early 1980s to train anti communist forces which included elements tied to the Coalition Government of Kampuchea and the Khmer Rouge. "

" Yes, Chris Ryan's claims about being sent to the Far East to train anti communist forces that included the Khmer are credible. "
 
Recumbentibus said:
Dude, no matter what I say, what evidence I will present, you are never gonna admit the truth.
How did John Pilger know to seek out Chris Ryan ?
Do you believe he knew who all the SAS troops that were sent to train the Khmer Rouge and their allies were ? ..... seriously ?
Click to expand...
You're joking. Pilger published Ryan on his site

johnpilger.com

Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia - John Pilger

The shocking state of Cambodia after Pol Pot’s murderous regime. John Pilger’s shocking 1979 documentary Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia alerted the world to the horrors wrought by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. The film was originally broadcast on commercial television in Britain and...
johnpilger.com johnpilger.com

Their later films reported on the American and British governments’ back-door support for the exiled Khmer Rouge. In 2008, the former SAS soldier Chris Ryan, then a bestselling author, lamented in a newspaper interview that ‘when John Pilger, the foreign correspondent, discovered we were training the Khmer Rouge in the Far East [we] were sent home’.
Click to expand...



Recumbentibus said:
Google

" Yes, Chris Ryan is credible regarding this deployment: he personally confirmed that his SAS team was sent to South East Asia in the early 1980s to train anti communist forces which included elements tied to the Coalition Government of Kampuchea and the Khmer Rouge. "

" Yes, Chris Ryan's claims about being sent to the Far East to train anti communist forces that included the Khmer are credible. "
Click to expand...
Yes, he trained the KPLNF and the SNA. Members of the anti-VN Coaltion that included the KR.
 
Last edited:
Officer of Engineers said:
You're joking. Pilger published Ryan on his site

johnpilger.com

Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia - John Pilger

The shocking state of Cambodia after Pol Pot’s murderous regime. John Pilger’s shocking 1979 documentary Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia alerted the world to the horrors wrought by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. The film was originally broadcast on commercial television in Britain and...
johnpilger.com johnpilger.com


Officer of Engineers said:
You're joking. Pilger published Ryan on his site

johnpilger.com

Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia - John Pilger

The shocking state of Cambodia after Pol Pot’s murderous regime. John Pilger’s shocking 1979 documentary Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia alerted the world to the horrors wrought by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. The film was originally broadcast on commercial television in Britain and...
johnpilger.com johnpilger.com






Yes, he trained the KPLNF and the SNA. Members of the anti-VN Coaltion that included the KR.
Click to expand...




Yes to quote from the John Pilgers article from his website that you have provided.

" In 2008, the former SAS soldier then a best selling author, lamented in a news paper interview, that when John Pilger the correspondent found out we were training the Khmer Rouge in the Far East, we were sent home.

So first he is admitting he/the SAS trained the Khmer, and he did this in 2008.

By saying we, that doesn't mean Pilger knew every single name of each SAS member that was sent, he was admitting that Pilger had found out the SAS were training the Khmer Rouge.

And this wasn't until 2008.
The court case you have referred to was back in 1991.

You have actually provided evidence from Chris Ryan that he admitted the SAS trained the Khmer Rouge.
Click to expand...
 
You can't follow your own evidence. Ryan claimed he trained the KR in 1981. The CGDK wasn't even formed until 1982 and the British didn't get involved until 1983. Those are the dates and Ryan's 1981 claim is the only one out of whack. In 1981, the only two powers helping the KR were the Thais and the Chinese. Ryan may have been there but it ain't 1981 and again, I doubt if he could tell a KR guerrilla from a KPNLF fighter from a SNA soldier. They all wore the same clothing and spoke the same language which Ryan could not and did not understand.

If Pilger didn't know about Ryan in the first place, then he really was speaking out of his ass. The British gag order ws to stop 3 Ministers and two former SAS heads from testifying in court. No other witnesses were gagged. You mean to tell me that Pilger had no other source other than hostile government witnesses? He had no other witnesses from Cambodia or even Thailand where this training occurred? That his entire case rested on a fishing expedition.

Even after all that, AFTER he found out Ryan's claims in 2008, he did not sought Ryan out in 2008 or anytime after to exonerate himself?

Yes, the US gave the KPNLF and FUNCIPEC WHO LATER funnelled some monies to the KR. That too has been well documented. The US at no time supported the KR, only the CGDK which happens to include the KR.

This is my last post on the matter. TBM3FAN is right. This thread has been highjacked enough. The last word is yours.
 
Recumbentibus said:
Unless we learn, and admit to the mistakes we have made in the past, we will continue to make them.
Click to expand...
We don't repeat mistakes, we make the same ones over and over again in different contexts. It's called human nature. Every mistake every government on the planet has ever made in your lifetime has been made previously by another sometime earlier, somewhere else. All that changes is the context.

So as your statement above above goes? You might as well just slipped on your ruby slippers, closed your eyes & wished for world peace in terms of the likelihood what you want will ever happen. Human beings? Often do learn from their mistakes, they can even learn from the mistakes of others but they do it as individuals not as some kind racial collective. And the larger the collective the least likely it is to learn. And the kicker? even when enough of us do at times recognize a problem we've caused and manage to come up with a solution? Most of the time that 'solution' just leads to or even causes new problems further down the track.

So I think it's time you started 'adulating' the real world and the human condition instead of lecturing people about paradise of Earth. Because if we're really lucky as a race? The best we're ever going to achieve is making the world a tiny bit better each generation than it was before. Fingers crossed.
 
Last edited:
Officer of Engineers said:
You can't follow your own evidence. Ryan claimed he trained the KR in 1981. The CGDK wasn't even formed until 1982 and the British didn't get involved until 1983. Those are the dates and Ryan's 1981 claim is the only one out of whack. In 1981, the only two powers helping the KR were the Thais and the Chinese. Ryan may have been there but it ain't 1981 and again, I doubt if he could tell a KR guerrilla from a KPNLF fighter from a SNA soldier. They all wore the same clothing and spoke the same language which Ryan could not and did not understand.

If Pilger didn't know about Ryan in the first place, then he really was speaking out of his ass. The British gag order ws to stop 3 Ministers and two former SAS heads from testifying in court. No other witnesses were gagged. You mean to tell me that Pilger had no other source other than hostile government witnesses? He had no other witnesses from Cambodia or even Thailand where this training occurred? That his entire case rested on a fishing expedition.

Even after all that, AFTER he found out Ryan's claims in 2008, he did not sought Ryan out in 2008 or anytime after to exonerate himself?

Yes, the US gave the KPNLF and FUNCIPEC WHO LATER funnelled some monies to the KR. That too has been well documented. The US at no time supported the KR, only the CGDK which happens to include the KR.

This is my last post on the matter. TBM3FAN is right. This thread has been highjacked enough. The last word is yours.
Click to expand...

First off I would like to apologise for stating you are a classic example of why our governments get away with supporting evil fucks
I broke my golden rule and made it personal.
I have been thinking about this while picking my Pieris.
While I am frustrated at your inability to accept all the evidence I have provided, what I did is on me not you.

As for the rest, again, I am happy to stand by what I have asserted with the evidence I have provided.

I have illustrated in the past that I am more than willing to admit I am wrong when I believe I am in the wrong.
This is not the case in this particular conversation.
 
Monash said:
We don't repeat mistakes, we make the same ones over and over again in different contexts. It's called human nature. Every mistake every government on the planet has ever made in your lifetime has been made previously by another sometime earlier, somewhere else. All that changes is the context.

So as your statement above above goes? You might as well just slipped on your ruby slippers, closed your eyes & wished for world peace in terms of the likelihood what you want will ever happen. Human beings? Often do learn from their mistakes, they can even learn from the mistakes of others but they do it as individuals not as some kind racial collective. And the larger the collective the least likely it is to learn. And the kicker? even when enough of us do at times recognize a problem we've caused and manage to come up with a solution? Most of the time that 'solution' just leads to or even causes new problems further down the track.

So I think it's time you started 'adulating' the real world and the human condition instead of lecturing people about paradise of Earth. Because if we're really lucky as a race? The best we're ever going to achieve is making the world a tiny bit better each generation than it was before. Fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

I have found, on a personal level, that the first step on the path in regards to not making the same mistake again, is by admitting that I have made a mistake in the first place.

World peace ?

" They don't hate us
They just hate their lives
And desperate people, learn to despise
The suicidals don't want a coup
They don't wanna blow up
They just want their 72

72 virgins will never stop a war
But 100,000 hookers will beat the marine corp
I'm stopping hatred, fighting will cease
WHEN EVERYONE IS GETTING BLOWJOBS
THAT'S WHEN WE'LL FINALLY HAVE WORLD PEACE "

Mike Burkett

Adulating the real world ?

Are you aware of the legacy we are leaving behind for future generations ?
Our kids can't afford to buy homes and start a family.
The gap between those who have, the richest few, and the rest of us is growing by the day.
We are trashing the planet- our home - that we live on.
" The current global extinction rate is estimated by experts to be 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the natural baseline rate, with roughly 1,000,000 species threatened with extinction due to human activity "
There are 8.7 million total species of eukaryotes on our planet.

For the first time in over a hundred years, Gen Z is the first to suffer a cognitive decline, a literal reversal of the Flynn effect.
I could go on...and on.

Lecturing ?
Are you lecturing when you post your opinions/thoughts/arguments, or does that term just apply to me ?

However I do acknowledge the good our species has done/is doing
Example, bringing up NASA's flight to the moon at the start of the Iran conflict.

On the other discussion board I am a member of, I started a topic
" The Good things/People thread "

I will do the same here.
 
So mixed results for the progressive wing of the democratic party in last night's primaries.
Looks like Peggy Flanagan won in Minnesota.
But David Crowley is predicted to beat Francesca Hong in Wisconsin.
 
As I keep noting the the progressive wing of the Dems has a habit of self sabotaging the parties chances of winning an election by pushing forward candidates that just aren't appealing to center right voters disenchanted with Trump's antics. It's almost like they prefer being virtuous to actually winning! Someone needs to remind them that the perfect is the enemy of the good because time is sure as hell running out for the party to remember that and start selecting candidates who are good (enoughish) to actually have a chance of winning the dam election!
 
Last edited:
"The perfect is the enemy of the good" cuts both ways: loyal, Constitution-respecting GOPers need to get over their fears and abandon the criminal thugs that have hijacked their party.
 
DOR said:
"The perfect is the enemy of the good" cuts both ways: loyal, Constitution-respecting GOPers need to get over their fears and abandon the criminal thugs that have hijacked their party.
Click to expand...
Not sure they can. GOPers are caught in a trap of their own making. They chose populism and the win over traditional GOP values. Yes, they got their election win but only at the cost of MAGA's taking control of much of the party machinery - at the national level at least. Now that MAGA is inside the tent? The only way I can see the GOP breaking their hold is a solid win by the Dems in 2028. (IMO a close win by the Dems won'tprobably wouldn't be enough to do it such is the grip of the MAGA crowd). The shockwave and recriminations such a defeat would produce within senior party ranks could be enough to shake lose MAGA's hold on the party. Could be.
 
Last edited:
Monash said:
Not sure they can. GOPers are caught in a trap of their own making. They chose populism and the win over traditional GOP values. Yes, they got their election win but only at the cost of MAGA's taking control of much of the party machinery - at the national level at least. Now that MAGA is inside the tent? The only way I can see the GOP breaking their hold is a solid win by the Dems in 2028. (IMO a close win by the Dems won'tprobably wouldn't be enough to do it such is the grip of the MAGA crowd). The shockwave and recriminations such a defeat would produce within senior party ranks could be enough to shake lose MAGA's hold on the party. Could be.
Click to expand...

Could you please pinpoint the moment when “traditional GOP values” expanded to include multiple divorces, nepotism, graft, and a total lack of respect for the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights)? Or, are you – for some reason I can’t fathom – differentiating between the GOP and MAGA?
 
DOR said:

Could you please pinpoint the moment when “traditional GOP values” expanded to include multiple divorces, nepotism, graft, and a total lack of respect for the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights)? Or, are you – for some reason I can’t fathom – differentiating between the GOP and MAGA?
Click to expand...

All those things you have mentioned are despicable.
However there is one you haven't mentioned that (no joke intended) trumps them all.

" A shit stain cabinet full of alleged sexual predators? Here's why it makes perfect sense "

https://theconversation.com/a-trump...ators-heres-why-it-makes-perfect-sense-244374



I cannot stress enough how I despise men who abuse women in anyway.
 
Not sure they can. GOPers are caught in a trap of their own making. They chose populism and the win over traditional GOP values. Yes, they got their election win but only at the cost of MAGA's taking control of much of the party machinery - at the national level at least. Now that MAGA is inside the tent? The only way I can see the GOP breaking their hold is a solid win by the Dems in 2028. (IMO a close win by the Dems won'tprobably wouldn't be enough to do it such is the grip of the MAGA crowd). The shockwave and recriminations such a defeat would produce within senior party ranks could be enough to shake lose MAGA's hold on the party. Could be.
Click to expand...

Republicans hate Democrats more than they love Republicans. Been true pretty much all this century. Why do they support Trump? What other choice is there? The Democrats aren't a choice for most and our country does not entertain third-party outfits. The pro-life caucus that are a very strong grassroots activists group for example and control local politics in my region of Indiana, Trump on pro-life issues during all his time as President has given them effectively nothing except lip service beyond "the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade". There's more abortions now post-Roe vs. Wade than there were before, because the issue that overturning Roe vs. Wade resolved was the issue should be decided at a state level instead of at a federal level. And because no one in American politics has principles and just believes whatever serves them in the moment, pro-life groups now want more federal controls on the issue, for example seeking to have the post office ban shipment of abortion pills under the Comstack Act. But if the pro-life caucus or others are upset with the Trump-led Republican Party, do you expect them to be welcomed with open arms and have influence in the Democratic Party? This is where what people like DOR says falls apart, true neocons for example have pretty much fallen into supporting the Democratic Party for this current era we're in (I refer you to the writers at The Bulwark and listen to Jonathan Last or to Hacks on Tap and Mike Murphy, pretty much describes Liz Cheney). There's a ton of Democrats if you ask them about this will say "we'll take their vote but ban these people from having any influence in our party", and "we became the party of the neocons" got blame internal to the party for Harris's defeat in 2024. I can go to the other party and find these things. Southern blacks where I'm from are as loyalist a Democratic group as you will find, and they passionately hate the party's progressives and left. If progressives take control of the national Democratic Party come 2028, do you expect Southern blacks to enthusiastically start voting Republican? Really? I'm a Libertarian. Republicans always say libertarians should vote for them, you'll have more influence that way, but have zero interest in listening to what we have to say more than ever before compared to recent history, and under Trump don't believe in libertarianism as a governing philosophy at all, and Democrats with an exception or two like Colorado Governor Jared Polis never have.

I don't believe a Democrat solid win in 2028 would do anything to change the current Republican Party. From 2008 and 2012 we know that would leave the Republican Party leaderless and rudderless, which means whoever is the loudest voice gets paid the most attention to. And that's going to be a quagmire. (So...termed out Trump...backs one of his sons for 2032?) Also throw on top of it that in landslides the people left would be from the most Republican districts, it's not the moderates that win. Really if you want the Republican Party to go to a pre-2016 mindset, you should probably cheer for a President Rubio to happen. Republicans always bend their knee to their king. The worst thing that ever happened to the old Republican Party was Trump won in 2016. If he lost, they would've stabbed him in the back and thrown him into the river like they did to McCain and Romney the day after they lost.

I'm involved in Indiana politics some, and how the Indiana Republican Party has changed, based on me being from North Carolina and knowing North Carolina history, is they're now Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats were social conservatives (social conservative then was based around interracial relations) that believed in very strong centralized government leadership that controlled all the levers of power. If Huey Long were around today I think he would more or less be Donald Trump, and there's a lot of Franklin Roosevelt in Donald Trump too although Republicans and Democrats both would rather not have that conversation.

Frankly I do think the Republican Party are in for a world of hurt of Trump's coalition is broad and vast and remove Trump, what the hell is going to happen? Looking at the future of the current GOP coalition, there's some 1948 and 1968 Democratic Party parallels here. The 1948 Democratic Party from Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition was able to survive albeit weaker by making the Henry Wallace progressives and the Strom Thurmond Dixiecrats more publicly outcasts in the national party. In 1968 the split was more permanent between the establishment Lyndon Johnson/Hubert Humphrey crew, the anti-war Eugene McCarthy supporters, and George Wallace's largely Dixiecrat campaign who did find some support for his campaign outside the South albeit not enough to win those states. I don't think a split at a presidential campaign level is going to happen now simply because the Republicans and Democrats have teamed up together to draw the rules to greatly discourage that possibility from happening (a very strong effort in Indiana occurred this year in our ballot access race with a very strong candidate, it cost them $800,000 to clear the 40,000 signature threshold, that was 1 state out of 50). If that becomes a real thing which it could whoever is backing that group would be throwing in some serious money when it would simply be easier to win the Republican primary. Whoever loses the 2028 primary if there's a contest (which is why I think the Trump administration will do their damnedest to try and ensure there's not one) is going to be very very bitter. But there's a very real coalition split on the horizon between all these groups with wildly different policy aims seeking to control the "after Trump" party.
 
Last edited:
I did read a good conversation on this topic at Talk Elections discussing the party change. The post was reacting to what former Tennessee Senator and 1996 Republican presidential candidate Lamar Alexander complaining that pressure groups changed the GOP. Here it is:

"I don't really think this is true. The reason Trump won the primary was immigration and the GOP was fairly liberal on immigration to appeal to big business. The issue I think was welcoming anti establishment people into the party and the voters not liking big business enough."

These are not mutual exclusive though.

Why did anti-establishment people join the party?
Because establishment Republicans leveraged religion and social issues to get elected.
Why did they leverage these issues, because their agenda (Paul Ryan et al) was grossly unpopular.

Rinse repeat several cycles and you end up with a protectionist, nativist, and isolationist base tired of being bait and switched by the Republican agenda distilled through corporate funded think tanks and pressure groups. Meanwhile all of the upper middle class professionals that love free trade, immigration and an engaged foreign policy are now all in the other party voting for DLC Democrats, because they are also secular, pro-choice, support gun control, support gay rights, and so forth.

This stuff is all linked together, and does not absolve the post Powel memo apparatus of wrecking the GOP as Alexander states.
Click to expand...

"I think if Republicans kept their conservative views on abortion, gay marriage, guns, etc., but never pivoted right on immigration, they'd still have control of their own party. Also I do think Republicans could have gone a bit softer on those issues to appeal to younger voters. Also yes, Mitt Romney made a mistake trying to make immigration an issue. But ultimately, the voters are to blame for choosing Donald Trump and unsurprisingly the GOP has gotten dumber and dumber when it's base is failures who think their life is a joke because of Mexicans rather than their unwillingness to put in any effort."

The former made the latter inevitable.

On the contrary Mitt Romney was right, because the damage was already done and rather it be someone with restraint harnessing that energy than someone else.

Downplaying and trying to suppress the immigration issue (Post Autopsy GOP), is what opened the door to Trump in the 2013 - 2015 period.
Click to expand...

"Immigration was largely drummed up by conservative media. I don't think there's any actual conservative interest group that cares about immigration crackdowns, Fox and talk radio just fearmongered about "ILLEGULS" all through the 2000's (probably not a coincidence it was after 9/11) to get ratings and created this Franckenstein monster. Agree Romney didn't really have a choice and probably wouldn't have even won the nomination if he hadn't been willing to make the "self deportation" comment and other things in that vein."

I watched Fox News in the 2000s, they were at best a mixed bag at the time. Ironically you had anti-immigration views being asserted on other networks at the time. Pat Buchanan for example. Talk radio certainly fanned the flames, but this did not come out of nowhere.

In terms of "conservative interest groups", that is because said "groups" are corporate funded. On the ground there were numerous elements of voters who were alarmed by the high levels of immigration. Many suburban areas feared political realignment hostile to them and crime, many working class areas (some already were Republican before these realignments I talked about previous) feared economic competition for already depressed business sectors, and many social conservatives feared being made a permanent minority.

The main problem was falling wages in non-college heavy economic sectors, onto which the mass wave of immigration made a pre-existing problem worse. Republican policy solutions being largely macro in nature (supply side tax cuts) meant the benefits flowed to the already successful, while resources were drained away from depressed areas, worsening the problem. The championing of free trade and unregulated finance by both parties contributed to this problem. Then on top of all of this, federal policy allowed a massive wave of low-skilled immigration, creating demographic and tribal tension where none was previously and creating a desire for restrictionist policies. The general narrative among liberals and on the left of "net benefits" and such from immigration ignored the reality of class based differential impact.

At the time, non-college whites were still a potentially Democratic vote in many areas (especially down-ballot) and Republicans had less reason to defy their open borders business backers. However, over the course of the 1990s/2000s culture wars, and the culturally tinged opposition to Obama, the GOP base composition shifted down the educational attainment spectrum, and with it became far more sensitive to the economic pressures among those voters.
Click to expand...

The biggest anti-immigration personalities I remember on cable news in that era was Buchanan who was actually a decent nuts-and-bolts political analyst for MSNBC, and Lou Dobbs, who was on CNN.

Class-based differences is something both parties pooh-pooh on officially. I know class instead very heavily influences British politics for example. But that's effectively what Sanders directly campaigned on in 2016 and kind of defines his wing of the modern Democratic Party and indirectly is what Trump took advantage of to win the 2016 primary as is stated above: it's not like conservatives in rural Iowa are going to stick up for corporations, which points you in the direction why both parties right now are generally pro-tariffs (Biden kept most of Trump's from his first term in place and his Inflation Reduction Act was broadly protectionist for American industry). Hakeem Jefferies who became the Democrats' top person in the House following Pelosi's retirement, after he took the role he categorically rejected there being class-based politics in the U.S. in comparison to race-based politics, which in this current era looks like wishful thinking on Jefferies' part, but I guess you have to say what you have to say. (To explain the disconnect, take the scenario of a rich black man and a poor white man living now. Who has more right to be aggrieved for injustice? Race-based politics and class-based politics each give you different answers.)
 
Last edited:
rj1,
"This is where what people like DOR says falls apart, true neocons for example have pretty much fallen into supporting the Democratic Party for this current era we're in (I refer you to the writers at The Bulwark and listen to Jonathan Last or to Hacks on Tap and Mike Murphy, pretty much describes Liz Cheney)."

My problem with the current criminal gang that calls itself the Republican Party is that they have put Leader ahead of Party, and – not for the first time – Party above Nation. That’s it, plain and simple: they have delegated the Nation to third (or lower, if you count religion and family) place.

The Nation has to be among the top three priorities, at a minimum. If it isn’t, then that is not a loyal political party. A loyal party will subjugate the party to the nation, as has happened so many times before (especially in times of war or other crises). Never, under any circumstances, allow the Leader to become the Party. That leads to demagoguery, or Kings.

When Liz Cheney, Susan Collins, or Liza Murkowski joins a party-line vote to enable the Orange Anti-Christ’s dictatorial desires, they do not come under the headings of neo-cons, GOPers, or loyal American patriots. No exceptions: if an elected or appointed leader is not fighting tooth and nail FOR the Constitution, then they deserve to be condemned.


Defining the abortion issue as “pro-life” is terrible. The honest term is “My values dictate your actions.”
Anti-contraception, “just say no,” and Christian Nationalism are also a cases of “My values Trump yours.”
Dems say “pro-choice,” which every Libertarian should easily embrace. The honest term is “You do what YOU need to do.”

If the progressive wing of the Democratic Party wins elections, and with it control of the party, then only those who believe in democracy will support the Democratic Party. That’s one of the main differences we have with the Orange Anti-Christ Mob: a rock-solid belief in democracy. This isn't 1960: we will gerrymander in defense of democracy, but not to rig an election. (By the way, I'm not a progressive; I've always been straight middle-of-the-road.)

rj1, I respect your views and appreciate your tone of debate. And, I agree that whatever happens in 2026 or 2028 elections is unlikely to change the GOP. What I think it will do is force a self-evaluation, an examination of how and why the party went so far off the rails. Back in the late 1970s and 1980s, Democrats were forced to purge our left wing, and we lost elections because of the choice to move decisively toward the middle.

GOPers are invited to purge that which keeps them so far away from the middle of the road.
 
"This is where what people like DOR says falls apart, true neocons for example have pretty much fallen into supporting the Democratic Party for this current era we're in (I refer you to the writers at The Bulwark and listen to Jonathan Last or to Hacks on Tap and Mike Murphy, pretty much describes Liz Cheney)."

My problem with the current criminal gang that calls itself the Republican Party is that they have put Leader ahead of Party, and – not for the first time – Party above Nation. That’s it, plain and simple: they have delegated the Nation to third (or lower, if you count religion and family) place.
Click to expand...

I have not believed the Republican or Democratic Parties have given a shit about this country for some time, pre-Trump or during Trump. If they did why are we $40 trillion in debt? Why is Social Security going to run out of money in the 2030s? Why has the Iran War demonstrated the strongest navy in the world is a complete shambles? Why is it an open question whether very old Senators are actually alive or not (Feinstein, now McConnell)? Why can't either side do any well-meaning probably bipartisan reforms? My Senator Todd Young - main author from the Republican side of the CHIPS Act - is pushing hard to get congressional stock trading banned right now. Why? Because there's Republicans in the state that hate him, have current Congresswoman Erin Houchin lined up to run against him, and he wants the accomplishment. BUT THE PUBLIC WAS ALMOST UNIVERSALLY ON BOARD WITH BANNING CONGRESSIONAL STOCK TRADING YEARS AGO! And yet that's still a thing!

Here's the end game if nothing changes: worst-case we become the Soviet Union post-1980s, best-case we become Britain post-World War II. Neither is really appetizing and the only thing that saved Britain from falling further (it's still falling now to be clear) is they chose to ally itself and become a vassal state to the strongest country in the world. And they still lost an Empire along the way.

Iran war should tell you against a country nowhere close to our equal when we have the strongest navy in the world, and we chose to do nothing but bomb while using a ton of our very expensive munitions to the point there are widely rumored shortfalls from several sources when having superior technology and pushing a button is pretty much our military defense strategy because no one will dare risk ground troops or surface navy ships. (The answer to Iran bombing our bases on the Gulf is probably going to be the U.S. military long-term moving most of its stuff to Israel and Jordan. That's an Iranian win on that front.) Everywhere in the world dependent on American military security should be scared sh*tless right now and I'm just waiting for more wars - why should our adversaries stand by and wait for the U.S. to rearm itself? Meanwhile we're running out of money, rates for our bonds keep going higher, inflation looks very sticky, and the only argument for using our dollar abroad as reserve is there's nothing else. That doesn't scream great future for me and my kids. Are the Republicans going to fix all this? Hell no. Are the Democrats going to fix all this? Hell no. Have either of them displayed they have the balls to even start tackling all of this? Hell no. The only reason either party talks about inflation is to bash the current government if ran by the opposition so they can take power. They don't actually want to fix inflation because they either don't know how or probably believe they can't without infuriating voters.

The only way this can even start getting fixed is you need an election where the Republicans and Democrats both lose, you need a complete volte-face toward public governance that both parties are incapable of providing. And that's probably not going to happen until a major crisis occurs. So I'm just waiting for the major crisis. There's been a lot of military naysayers for years on "all these problems are bubbling underneath the surface" that more optomistic types would hand-waive off into "we're fine". Ukraine and Iran this decade has brought all those problems to be acknowledged reality. We're going to get a few more of those in other fields.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top