US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[ikalugin]

Underground construction of secret metro line for US leadership, an OSINT report:
https://t.co/LAeFzBsrES?amp=1
(redirects to Telegram from Twitter)

[MaDef]

I think what a lot of people are forgetting, is that the President is also the Commander in Chief of the armed services as stated in Article II, section II of the Constitution. That section also grants him the power to pardon and reprieve for offences against the United States.

Since the President has the authority to intervene. The question is, was the intervention warranted. Just food for thought.

[Rockstar]

That's true from what I've gathered the reason he intervened was the Chief had already spent much more time in the brig during pre-trial confinement than the maximum which could be awarded for his trophy photos. As far as retirement goes he did his time he was asked to do more than what any arm chair general is capable of thinking or doing without crapping their pants and freezing in fear.

I'm well aware in the service, one nasty-gram can wipe out 10 attaboys. But here I agree with the intervention, allow the chief his benefits of which I believe he has more than earned and one option and that is to retire immediately. I think the President did the right thing tells me he was interested in the trials outcome and gave a damn.

[Skybird]

More likely he was not so much interested in the trials outcome but in collecting some sympathy points with a major contributor to his voter base: the average Jims and Joes in the military.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

More likely he was not so much interested in the trials outcome but in collecting some sympathy points with a major contributor to his voter base: the average Jims and Joes in the military.

No doubt there's political hay to be generated right down the party line, goes with the territory I guess. You're damned if you do and damned and if you don't.

edit: party politics and political butt hurt aside I think he did the right thing.

[mapuc]

Sorry for going back to this ongoing hearing.

Our news channel have this weekly magazine "The world according to President Trump"

In yesterdays program, they showed a 30 second clip from this hearing and some statement from President Trump.

In this hearing the chairman asked Sondland some question and he answered with a little laughter saying

Things like
- That's how we talk to each other

In the same sequence they change from this hearing to President Trump
Who said
I barely know him, he seems to be a nice guy.

Now I wonder...who's lying and who would benefit most from it ?

And if it's Mr. Trump who have lied about their friendships, what will happen to him ?
If it's Sondland who have lied ?(in ordinary court a witness can be prosecuted if s/he lie)

Markus

[Rockstar]

Whats your take on this? Looks like a fairly well put together system finally using some of the available tech too me.

California trying to change the way we vote.

https://www.wsj.com/video/california...ng_now_video_5

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

edit: party politics and political butt hurt aside I think he did the right thing.

There were three cases. I realsised that in two cases I could not differ between what might be media stunts that blew somehtign out of proportion, ordinary combat action being interporeted as excessivce or something like that, so I decided to abstain from an opinion on these two cases. I do not say pro and I do not say contra on these. The third however, posing with the corpus of dead enemies, is something that cannot be interpreted as combat action, but shows a severly derailed persinality (whatever the reaosn may be) or a severly derailed general set of behaviour standards and morals. And this after the images from Abu Ghraib. I say "guilty" here. Also, the miliuary justice system has been devalued severly in this case, he ran throzgh the demanded procedures and was found guilty, and then the little boy int he WH comes along and say "Ätschi-bätschi, you may say this, but I say something different." Not good. A lot of people in the JAG (is it the office responsible here? I know it only form TV series, I admit) must be pissed and feel disrespected, although I assume for a start that they did their job to their best knowledge.

Lil' Boy's arguments do not convince me. He took an opportunity to score a cheap point and fueling already burning fires. Mind you, in his thinking there is not enough room for anything more than just "I", and I have no doub that he cares #### about the reputation of these three men or about justice. That they profit from his decisions, is a side-effect that happens to be real but that he is not interested in at all. His own profit is what made him doing it. The three other men just happen to not get in his way.

[mapuc]

One day this justice are going to bite him in the rear.

Markus

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by mapuc

One day this justice are going to bite him in the rear.

Markus

But it will be distasteful and they'll spit it out ensuring another victory for, for, for, what?

[vienna]

<O>

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

There were three cases. I realsised that in two cases I could not differ between what might be media stunts that blew somehtign out of proportion, ordinary combat action being interporeted as excessivce or something like that, so I decided to abstain from an opinion on these two cases. I do not say pro and I do not say contra on these. The third however, posing with the corpus of dead enemies, is something that cannot be interpreted as combat action, but shows a severly derailed persinality (whatever the reaosn may be) or a severly derailed general set of behaviour standards and morals. And this after the images from Abu Ghraib. I say "guilty" here. Also, the miliuary justice system has been devalued severly in this case, he ran throzgh the demanded procedures and was found guilty, and then the little boy int he WH comes along and say "Ätschi-bätschi, you may say this, but I say something different." Not good. A lot of people in the JAG (is it the office responsible here? I know it only form TV series, I admit) must be pissed and feel disrespected, although I assume for a start that they did their job to their best knowledge.

Lil' Boy's arguments do not convince me. He took an opportunity to score a cheap point and fueling already burning fires. Mind you, in his thinking there is not enough room for anything more than just "I", and I have no doub that he cares #### about the reputation of these three men or about justice. That they profit from his decisions, is a side-effect that happens to be real but that he is not interested in at all. His own profit is what made him doing it. The three other men just happen to not get in his way.

I view Abu Grahib as a serious screw up, absolutely uncalled for, no reason for it, a total breakdown of good order and discipline. However Chief Gallagher case is IMO something different. He was charged and found not guilty of war crimes. But it appears the pictures he took was looked upon by some as something unbecoming of a trained killer of his fellow man, a result of combat action. We expect him to do our dirty work and sent him overseas to a foreign land to kill another. He did what some here would outright refuse or soil themselves if confronted. He did what we asked of him but he is not some kind of robot. There will be internal conflicts, psychological damage and mental derailment. If not helped he will all on his own find a way to deal with the things he's done. IMO Trophy photos was one of those ways maybe an attempt to dehumanize those we expected him to kill by his own hand. Easy for some to judge but I think he deserves at least an ounce of respect and a ton of professional help from trained professionals and his peers. Not jail time nor condemnation for doing something we ourselves are afraid to do.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I view Abu Grahib as a serious screw up, absolutely uncalled for, no reason for it, a total breakdown of good order and discipline. However Chief Gallagher case is IMO something different. He was charged and found not guilty of war crimes. But it appears the pictures he took was looked upon by some as something unbecoming of a trained killer of his fellow man, a result of combat action. We expect him to do our dirty work and sent him overseas to a foreign land to kill another. He did what some here would outright refuse or soil themselves if confronted. He did what we asked of him but he is not some kind of robot. There will be internal conflicts, psychological damage and mental derailment. If not helped he will all on his own find a way to deal with the things he's done. IMO Trophy photos was one of those ways maybe an attempt to dehumanize those we expected him to kill by his own hand. Easy for some to judge but I think he deserves at least an ounce of respect and a ton of professional help from trained professionals and his peers. Not jail time nor condemnation for doing something we ourselves are afraid to do.

Difficult to judge from a distance, but pretty much of what you say was on my mind as well (I was psychologist, mind you). However, I came to different conclusions than you, and I also think here regarding the function of a precedence. Trophy shots with enemy cadavers maybe are explainable on a psychological (though derranged) or deep-rooting archaic level, but there is also the need to maintain and hold up the cool professional level of discipline and executing military tasks that by behaviour like this get eroded. If this example becomes common, than determination in the military effort easily will turn into outright cruelty as a self-purpose, or worse: cruelty as a duty and goal to strive for.

[Skybird]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the "president of the United States".



Fortschreitende Vertrottelung.

[Onkel Neal]

Lol, he wishes