kurtster wrote:
Actually it’s the other way around. Your arguments don’t even rise to the level of weak. Your continued support of a bunch of reckless, incompetent fools falls flat when the main problem you see is not with the idiots sharing the timing and results of a sensitive military attack but with the reporter who was included in the chat group. Almost like calling a witness to a crime responsible for the crime.
 
Of course he had to let it play out to see whether someone would realize what is happening. The fact that no one did is a further indictment of the lack of security being employed by your boob masters. Who do you think should get fired for this Kurtster? I mean if your buddy Musk can fire thousands for no reason, this would certainly be a reason to let some people go. The Signal app is not considered a secure channel of communication anyway so why are they even using it?
 
What ally of ours is ever going to provide us with sensitive information if they believe that their information could be compromised? You need to start thinking big picture (not small) about the repercussions of things like this and what it says about this administration and our eroding standing in the world.

If this incident would have happened under Biden you would have had a field day posting about it. As it is, you are playing defense but it’s not working. You need to acknowledge it for what it is: A dangerous colossal f*ck up by people who should know better but don’t.

 kurtster wrote:
Perhaps Goldberg was somewhat skeptical that the people in the chat were actually who they claimed to be.  He didn't confirm what had transpired in that chat until he had heard that the bombs were actually falling.

...After receiving the Waltz text related to the “Houthi PC small group,” I consulted a number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds. I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.

 kurtster wrote:
Why? Was it something important?

 islander wrote: 
I was thinking of posting more actually. 

You're arguments are getting weaker and weaker.  You need to be challenged more often to raise your game.

Your laurels are too well rested to be of any meaningful support these days.

 kurtster wrote:

So now you're saying Jan 6th was a big deal?

it's so hard to keep up with your stream of bullshit. I know you can't stop the bullshit, so maybe just post less?

 VV wrote: 
Yeah, it was a group chat.  Calling it a call doesn't change what I said. 

He still could have spoke up figuratively speaking by texting uh, guys, am I supposed to be on this call ?  Something's wrong and if I can be on this call, anyone can.  You guys should terminate this conversation immediately.

Doesn't change what I referenced regarding the reporter's misguided concerns.  He could have acted, but didn't.  He made a conscious choice not to. It would have been the right to do thing if he was truly concerned about national security.

This would be two wrongs on one "call".  The administration did act swiftly and acknowledged the call, said it was a mistake and steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence.  No cover up, no denials. 

The reporter was wrong for not alerting the participants that the call could be unsecured and compromised.  You don't see that way though.

This is how people can look at the same thing and have different reactions and conclusions.  This is not the next January 6th.  Get over it.

 kurtster wrote:
Here try this one.
 
Go back and read up on what this was all about. There was no call… dummy!! Become at least somewhat informed about something before you post about it.

Oh and yeah, this is all the reporter’s fault that sensitive information was shared with him.

 islander wrote: 
Here, try this one.

If the Atlantic "journalist" was actually worried about our national security, especially with his background, he would have spoken up during the call and said, uh, guys, am I supposed to be on this call ?  Something's wrong and if I can be on this call, anyone can.  You guys should terminate this conversation immediately.

But no.  He just played fly on the wall only thinking about himself and the big "scoop" he was about to get.  To hell with the best interests of the US.  Me, me, me. Got 'em.  I'll be a hero !

Fortunately, the information discussed was no big deal to begin with as noted by the reduction of hyperbole used to describe the call and the mission was a success.

 R_P wrote:
A classic case of projecting the slope of the curve off into the future without considering how that curve will bend—the second derivative for you math geeks*—if the circumstances change.

Ukraine has historically been a grain exporting powerhouse, and most of its exports have flowed thru ports on the Black Sea. Russia has occupied all those but Odessa and has consistently pushed to cut the country off from access to that trade avenue. It frequently targets the port facilities in Odessa and—until its navy was driven from Ukrainian waters by drone attack craft—was interdicting trade at sea.

Ukraine has lost almost 7 million people as refugees. These aren't just mouths to feed, they are productive people who were supporting themselves before they were driven off. Their absense is one driver of the economic situation that is at least partially reversible.

And of course the war itself is a major disruptor of economic activity. When factories can run without interruption from Russia's constant attacks on the country's power grid they can get back to productive work. So if the war ended tomorrow a lot of activity that isn't happening now would resume.

All of this of course depends on what the peace looks like. If it's what Putin is demanding (and what Trump is eager to force it to accept)—capitulation on the battlefield, the elimination of the country's ability to resist future agression, and the installation of a puppet regime—then the country is doomed to whatever future Putin sees fit to punish it with. It will also lose a lot more people to emigration.

If Ukraine can hold out until Russia has completed exhausting itself, manages to retake the 20% Russia now occupies, and can return to productive activity its future is much brighter. That will also depend on the country being able to shed the endemic corruption that existed before the invasion, a major weakness Russia exploited, but that would at least leave that future in its own hands.

*Both of you. I see you!

 islander wrote:
8

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Good thing there wasn't a major earthquake, or any other natural disasters that might need emergency relief in the world. America would look like a shmuck if we intentionally broke the systems that helped out people in crisis all over the world.  

How many decades of soft power have we pissed away in two months?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Bankrupting Ukraine.

Final Cuts Will Eliminate U.S. Aid Agency in All but Name

I want a bumper sticker that says:   Sic Semper Trump Tyrannis

This has set a new world record for lying and gaslighting in one statement.

A sobering message from a history teacher about America turning from democracy to authoritarianism:

I teach both American and international government. For years, I’ve been going over “case study” states, from mostly democratic (UK), to democratizing-but-corrupt (Mexico, Nigeria), to illiberal-authoritarian (Russia), to theocratic (Iran), to traditional authoritarian (China).

When it comes to the difference between democracy and authoritarianism, one thing Americans need to understand is that there’s never one single moment when you become an authoritarian state; no leader will stand up and announce, “I am now a dictator.”

Putin is the classic case study in the gradual, effective subversion of democracy. Russia had been democratizing for about a decade when he took over in 2000, and now — even though Russia ostensibly still has the appearance of democracy (elections, separation of powers, federalism, and a constitution) — none of that matters. Putin is in absolute control. And Putin is, coincidentally (?), the authoritarian most vocally admired by Donald Trump.

But how screwed are we? Well, as any first-year political science student can tell you, there are — very simple, clear-cut, definitive — ways to tell when your democracy is in danger. Let’s go over them, shall we?

1. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when… your Legislative Branch cedes power to your President.
Montesquieu (and later Madison) envisioned the Legislative Branch as the primary workhorse of government: it was made — in part — to check the President’s excesses. It has far more powers than the President, it’s more representative of the people than the President, and it was specifically given the ability to restrain, overrule, or remove the President. In all of U.S. history, the legislature was never intended to be subservient to executive power. When a President’s rule sidesteps legislative functions — and Congress allows it — the balance of power is subverted.

For the record, Putin’s rise initially faced resistance from his own legislative Duma — serving their constitutional function — until he cowed them, forced out resistors, and intimidated dissent, eventually rewriting the rules around elections to install loyalists exclusively.

Ask yourself: Has the U.S. Congress been ceding power to President Trump, diminishing in importance as the president’s role grows?

2. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when… corporatism becomes normalized.

Corporatism is a political system in which for-profit business groups (i.e., mass media and energy) become the most impactful partners in the government’s policymaking process.
Authoritarians need industry leaders (and more importantly, their money) to spread their influence. Consequently, deals are made and favors traded (tax cuts in exchange for favorable reporting, for instance) that further enhance the power of the oligarchs and the President over that of the people.
For the record, Putin allowed profiteering for oligarchs who would help him (the Rotenburgs and Yuri Kovalchuk), and persecuted or jailed those who opposed him (Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky).

Ask yourself: Has President Trump empowered corporations who aided him and diminished those who opposed him in order to gain more power?

3. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when… you begin to wonder if your President will obey the Constitution.

Rule of law is considered one of the four pillars of democracy, and the U.S. — despite its foibles — has a strong tradition of adherence to this concept. For many countries, the constitution is just a piece of paper, altered on the fly when it suits the regime (example: every Chinese president before Xi Jinping had term limits; now — with a wave of the pen — he does not). If obeying the U.S. Constitution becomes a question rather than an expectation, that is not in the American tradition of democracy.
For the record, Putin regularly violates the civil liberties present within the Russian constitution: restricting protests, intimidating (or outright murdering) journalists, and jailing political opponents.

Ask yourself: Have President Trump’s actions ever threatened constitutional norms or the rule of law in pursuit of personal gain?

4. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when… your President creates enemies for you to turn on, both internally and externally.

This is pretty much textbook fascism, frankly, but I’m shocked at how easily it’s getting overlooked. Look, one cannot be a hero without a villain — and who is more easily vanquished than the vulnerable? If you can turn your citizenry onto a witch hunt against its own people, that’s a useful tool for power grabs in the name of “security.” And if you can turn them against a foreign adversary, even better: nothing promotes nationalism like warfare… especially easily won warfare.

Ask yourself: Has President Trump encouraged us to turn on any of our fellow Americans… or created any new foreign enemies out of historic allies?

5. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when… your President elevates loyalty to himself personally over loyalty to the country.

Consider: though most cabinet members are rotated out when a new president enters, the vast majority of bureaucrats and soldiers (everyone from staff sergeants to park rangers) stay in place, keeping the machinery of government running, as their oath is to the Constitution — not a specific human being. Authoritarians see that as insufficient, replacing elements of the bureaucracy — especially military and law enforcement — who will criticize implementation, or refuse illegal execution, of presidential will.

For the record, one of Putin’s first actions as President was to put the FSB (their version of the FBI) under direct control of the President (himself). Prior to that, there had been a detachment between law enforcement and political power, expected and traditional in western democracies. From May 17, 2000 onward, they became a tool of his will, incrementally expanded in power and wielded against his enemies.

Ask yourself: Has President Trump appointed government agents — especially military and law enforcement — who have vocalized loyalty to him personally, and advocated for vengeance against his political enemies?

Sigh. I’m tired, but I could go on and on. There’s a phrase that’s been paraded lately: “Democracy dies in darkness.” In my experience, that’s not necessarily what’s happening here. Despite the backslide in democratic qualities we’re experiencing, the one we have in spades is transparency: thanks to a vibrant media ecosystem — and Trump’s narcissistic self-promotion — we are constantly aware of the moves he’s making to subvert the norms of our regime.

That said, as democracy dies in America, it won’t be in darkness. It will be in plain sight — and with our permission.

~Roman Sheremeta

 rgio wrote:

"For a guy that seems so worried about the cost of things... you sure support a party that's doing a lot of stupid sh**."

Stupid sh** that also works against Kurt's best interests. Some people enjoy seeing themselves as the victim, but there's no guarantee they'll figure out who's ripping them off. 

 islander wrote:

Two weeks.

 islander wrote:
*tosses dice* 

 Isabeau wrote:

They are still trying out different responses, looking for one that doesn't sound completely ridiculous. He'll get back to you once they have settled on somet  he has carefully considered the situation and formed an opinion.