April 17, 20214 yr Lack of conflict is not success. Thats avoidance. Diplomacy is weak...very weak...when dealing with a bad faith adversary
April 17, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Lack of conflict is not success. Thats avoidance. Diplomacy is weak...very weak...when dealing with a bad faith adversary It was diplomacy or war (and still is) and unless you can point to a specific instance of them being caught in violation of the deal by inspectors, then your going solely off of the feels.
April 17, 20214 yr Author 11 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Lack of conflict is not success. Thats avoidance. Diplomacy is weak...very weak...when dealing with a bad faith adversary I was basically typing what Van said as he posted it. Armed conflict is immeasurably worse in the age of mechanized warfare. Diplomacy is ,and always has been, "war by other means." You need to apply both carrot and stick, but the reality of MAD means that the stick can't be wielded carelessly.
April 17, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: It was diplomacy or war (and still is) and unless you can point to a specific instance of them being caught in violation of the deal by inspectors, then your going solely off of the feels. False dichotomy fear of war does not make diplomacy effective. Sanctions are war by other means and we would end them quickly from the air in a war
April 17, 20214 yr Author If you're contemplating war with Iran, you are necessarily contemplating war with Russia and its proxies like Syria, which inevitably involves nuclear powers on the other side like Israel. This is how world war breaks out. Tehran is Sarajevo in 1914.
April 17, 20214 yr Author Just now, ToastJenkins said: and we would end them quickly from the air in a war Iran was under some of the strictest sanctions possible. All it did was isolate them further and give a greater audience to the radicals and empower terrorists. 1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said: and we would end them quickly from the air in a war Sounds like exactly what was said about Vietnam and Iraq. Even if you decapitate its leadership, the power vacuum that ensues could be much worse. You end up with an entirely destabilized region that is a breeding ground for insurgency. The best thing we could do is get the hell out of the middle east before we're caught in the midst of that powder keg when the fuse is lit. Let them kill each other off while we focus on our domestic follies.
April 18, 20214 yr On 4/16/2021 at 10:38 PM, EaglesRocker97 said: So, Biden creates a commission to study SCOTUS expansion, and a week later, both the House and the Senate announce legislation to do so? This feels like undercutting Biden and a dumb move, IMO. Biden shouldn’t have opened that can of worms in the first place.
April 18, 20214 yr Author 3 hours ago, DrPhilly said: Biden shouldn’t have opened that can of worms in the first place. It was already opened. I understand the point you're trying to make here, that he encouraged it, but that doesn't make sense to me. When he announced the commission, I'm pretty sure the intended effect was to mollify the left, and if we're being realistic, a good amount of moderate liberals, too. Expansion is finding support across a pretty broad cross-section of the Democratic Party, so he couldn't write it off as fringe element. The conventional wisdom would say that, by creating the commission, it should have helped calm tempers somewhat by showing that he is concerned with the matter and taking the initial steps to address it. Instead, it seemed to motivate them to be more aggressive. I definitely didn't see that coming. I thought this would hold them off for a bit. We are definitely in a different era of politicking. One of the reasons I liked Biden's decision was because it seemed to acknowledge the push for expansion without aggressively endorsing it in a way that would give too much leverage to the right. The idea is that, if you show people that you're getting to work, then it should at least hold off the mob for a few months while you weigh your options. Congress one-upping him with pre-emptive legislation seems pretty counterinutive, not to mention pretty damn tone-deaf. Biden has a much better sense for the pulse of the nation than a lot of the upstarts in Congress, even the moderate ones. Even if I usually find myself agreeing with leftist policies, I also end up frequently at odds with their strategies (or lack thereof). They have no foresight, demonstrate poor recognition of their Party's diversity, and employ careless rhetoric that undermines their ability to build the kind of broad-based coalition necessary to maintain the majority. Congressional Democrats generally seem incapable of playing the long game. The fail to understand the comprehensive approach needed to achieve their lofty objectives. "Systemic change," is achieved by a series of small victories in public relations and legislative cooperation, but they don't want to hear anything about patience and caution; they want their money, and they want it now. The worst part is that a lot of them won't even listen to alternative approaches, even if they envision the same goal. There used to be a tradition of young legislators finding mentors among senior leadership and learning the skills needed to really be an effective negotiator. It was a kind of apprenticeship that helped green politicians build relationships and understand the strategies needed to influence committees and command the floor, but they seem to think they know it all. No one wants to learn on the job, and no one wants to face the reality that, even if the old methods were painfully slow, they largely worked. By contrast, Biden is a shrewd negotiator and a master tactician; there a few of these remaining in Congress. One of the great advantages to having him in office is that he has decades of experience in the Senate that allowed him to build working relationships with many of the people who determine the fate of the legislation now coming before them. Biden probably understands better than anyone the Congressional dynamics and the strategies needed to effectively exploit them. The point of having an executive with so much legislative experience should be that he has the stature and expertise to get bills passed. Democrats,should be deferring to Biden, not only as the president and leader of their Party, but as the expert with the knowledge and wisdom to get things done. Biden is trying to play chess here, but the Party wants to play tic-tac-toe. I thought this move was disrespectful and asinine. I didn't expect it. It is fair to claim that it reveals a miscalculation on Biden's part, but it's also fair to think that it caught him and his strategists off-guard.
April 18, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: It was already opened. No it wasn't, not in terms of the latest opening. 3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: pretty sure the intended effect was to mollify the left, Fail 3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: definitely didn't see that coming I did and told you so. 4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Biden is a shrewd negotiator and a master tactician; there a few of these remaining in Congress. One of the great advantages to having him in office is that he has decades of experience in the Senate Yes, but he isn't acting alone and others close to him will be pushing him to take action and this time he did not understand the tea leaves.
April 18, 20214 yr Author 10 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: No it wasn't, not in terms of the latest opening. What is opened now that wasn't last month? It's not like Biden's announcement suddenly put the matter on the table. The idea has been circulating for sometime now. It felt like an inevitability, so I'm pretty sure Biden intended to get out in front of Congress put up some guardrails. 10 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I did and told you so. I remember your saying essentially that it was inflammatory and would be turned against them by their opponents, but I don't think you called his own Party showing him up. 10 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Yes, but he isn't acting alone and others close to him will be pushing him to take action and this time he did not understand the tea leaves. Of course he's not acting alone. Any President not named Trump would weigh the opinions of his cabinet and Congressional allies before introducing policies. If I were to guess, he probably had a lot of them telling him to just get fully on-board with expansion, so this was a middle-ground solution.
April 18, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: What is opened now that wasn't last month? It's not like Biden's announcement suddenly put the matter on the table. The idea has been circulating for sometime now. It felt like an inevitability, so I'm pretty sure Biden intended to get out in front of Congress put up some guardrails. I remember your saying essentially that it was inflammatory and would be turned against them by their opponents, but I don't think you called his own Party showing him up. Of course he's not acting alone. Any President not named Trump weigh weigh the opinions of his cabinet and Congressional allies before introducing policies. If I were to guess, he probably had a lot of them telling him to just get full on-board with expansion, so this was a middle-ground solution. The topic moved from a list of 50 items waiting for attention to one of the top 5 being discussed and given airplay. I've said time and again that the fringe left would not be satisfied with just a lot of hot air and that Biden would eventually be in a large fight with them on several fronts. When you and others implied that the idea was "just a commission" I was pretty clear to say that the commission gave legitimacy to the idea and that it would stoke the fringe. I wasn't too worried at all about what the Right would say on this one. The country at large was my worry and I knew the Left fringe would take the bait and run. Point being is that as good as he is at keeping a level head he is going to be persuaded by the progressives to take poor decision on occasion and this was one of those. He should have just simply said "no". If he wanted to start a commission on the general topic he could have been clear that expansion was not part of their assignment.
April 18, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: The topic moved from a list of 50 items waiting for attention to one of the top 5 being discussed and given airplay. I've said time and again that the fringe left would not be satisfied with just a lot of hot air and that Biden would eventually be in a large fight with them on several fronts. When you and others implied that the idea was "just a commission" I was pretty clear to say that the commission gave legitimacy to the idea and that it would stoke the fringe. I wasn't too worried at all about what the Right would say on this one. The country at large was my worry and I knew the Left fringe would take the bait and run. Point being is that as good as he is at keeping a level head he is going to be persuaded by the progressives to take poor decision on occasion and this was one of those. He should have just simply said "no". If he wanted to start a commission on the general topic he could have been clear that expansion was not part of their assignment. So how do you propose figuring out if it’s a good idea or not if there’s no commission?
April 18, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: So how do you propose figuring out if it’s a good idea or not if there’s no commission? Court expansion isn't a good idea. Anyone with half a brain understands that. No need for a commission.
April 18, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, DrPhilly said: Court expansion isn't a good idea. Anyone with half a brain understands that. No need for a commission.
April 18, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, Dave Moss said: Ahh right, that's a well thought out and articulated argument in favor of court packing that I hadn't yet considered. You just might change my mind.
April 18, 20214 yr 12 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Ahh right, that's a well thought out and articulated argument in favor of court packing that I hadn't yet considered. You just might change my mind. Why do I have to change your mind? The commission is to figure out if it’s a good idea or not. Not to please you.
April 18, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Why do I have to change your mind? The commission is to figure out if it’s a good idea or not. Not to please you. Are you on the commission?
April 18, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Maybe Ahh tricky. In any case, I certainly don't need the commission to tell me if court packing is a good idea or not though it would appear you on the other hand are incapable of forming your own opinion based on your last few posts. Or more likely you're just trolling as you normally do.
April 18, 20214 yr 50 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Ahh tricky. In any case, I certainly don't need the commission to tell me if court packing is a good idea or not though it would appear you on the other hand are incapable of forming your own opinion based on your last few posts. Or more likely you're just trolling as you normally do. Remember when you said you had to wait for the results of an election to answer a question about wearing masks. Yeah, you think for yourself alright...
April 18, 20214 yr 10 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Remember when you said you had to wait for the results of an election to answer a question about wearing masks. Yeah, you think for yourself alright... That was about having a discussion without the election hanging over it you dope. The opinions were already in place.
April 20, 20214 yr On 4/18/2021 at 11:23 AM, Dave Moss said: So how do you propose figuring out if it’s a good idea or not if there’s no commission? He already said it was a bad idea
April 20, 20214 yr Author I'll have an extended reply for @DrPhilly in a little bit. I went back and looked over the earlier conversation and think there's a lot to unpack there. It's a very intriguing situation. I've been suddenly tied up these last few days, though, and I want to give it a thorough analysis, so I'll probably post back here in a day or two.
April 20, 20214 yr 47 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'll have an extended reply for @DrPhilly in a little bit. I went back and looked over the earlier conversation and think there's a lot to unpack there. It's a very intriguing situation. I've been suddenly tied up these last few days, though, and I want to give it a thorough analysis, so I'll probably post back here in a day or two. There’s really no need. Dr. Philly has already declared it a bad idea.
April 20, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'll have an extended reply for @DrPhilly in a little bit. I went back and looked over the earlier conversation and think there's a lot to unpack there. It's a very intriguing situation. I've been suddenly tied up these last few days, though, and I want to give it a thorough analysis, so I'll probably post back here in a day or two.
Create an account or sign in to comment