Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Nobody seriously believes that the Bosnian-Serb paramilitary army would have dared to attack and destroy the Dutch troops, which the West would have treated as an act of war, had they had the balls to hold their ground. But you have to have the balls. It much easier to second-guess others from a comfy armchair.

Talking about armchairs, it was the USA (together with the UK and France) who sealed the fate of those 8000+ men and boys, by deciding to withhold air-support. Apparently, that decision had been made already weeks before. General Mladic knew there would be no support, so he could do as he wanted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/04/how-britain-and-us-abandoned-srebrenica-massacre-1995

Bart

[Alan Klein]

Talking about armchairs, it was the USA (together with the UK and France) who sealed the fate of those 8000+ men and boys, by deciding to withhold air-support. Apparently, that decision had been made already weeks before. General Mladic knew there would be no support, so he could do as he wanted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/04/how-britain-and-us-abandoned-srebrenica-massacre-1995

Bart

The Dutch UN forces were not blamed for the 8000.  Rather, for the 300 civilians they had in protection and then turned them over to  the other side knowing they would probably be killed. 

Having said that, my main point in pushing this is not to condemn the Dutch.  There's a lot of fog in war.  It's often difficult to know what's the right thing to do especially when the safety of your own forces is  in question.  So I ask you to consider America who sometimes makes what in retrospect turns out to be a poor decision.  Nothing's perfect and hindsight is 20/20. Just like the Dutch forces, American forces and American politicians often err even though their heart and hopes are in the right place.  Wouldn't it be decent and fair for the both of us to be be reasonable in measuring success and failure and moral judgements with this in mind and stop the constant criticizing? 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Wouldn't it be decent and fair for the both of us to be be reasonable in measuring success and failure and moral judgements with this in mind and stop the constant criticizing?

There's no problem with fair criticism where criticism is due. Without checks and balances, we will learn nothing and we will repeat our mistakes from the past.

Fake news is not criticism, it is fake news and it's usually intended to distract from, or distort, the objective truth. It is also aimed at reducing confidence in serious investigative journalism. It is aimed at making matters worse.

Those who indulge in spreading such fake news will be exposed for the despicable personalities they are.

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

Sorry, Rob, you did say that:

"It" being:

That "point" was not ignored by Alan, but by the court. If you accuse Alan of ignoring it (as you did) then you are implying he, Alan, also found the Dutch guilty. Simple logic, you can't have it both ways.

An impressive display of obtuse mathematical logic applied to the service of extrapolation

:-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

There's no problem with fair criticism where criticism is due. Without checks and balances, we will learn nothing and we will repeat our mistakes from the past.

Fake news is not criticism, it is fake news and it's usually intended to distract from, or distort, the objective truth. It is also aimed at reducing confidence in serious investigative journalism. It is aimed at making matters worse.

Those who indulge in spreading such fake news will be exposed for the despicable personalities they are.

Cheers,
Bart

Far better to look at it as propaganda.

[jeremyrh]

Far better to look at it as propaganda.

I think it's more insidious than that - it's propagation of a whole mass of lies with the intention that the population be utterly confused about what the truth is, and become too disoriented to resist the ruling class.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I think it's more insidious than that - it's propagation of a whole mass of lies with the intention that the population be utterly confused about what the truth is, and become too disoriented to resist the ruling class.

Exactly. If you can't convince, confuse/distract/divert. It's a very obvious strategy, also used by Russia (and others).

Same is happening with the questioning of Kamala Harris' nationality. Unless called out for what it is, it will repeat until doubt is sowed in the minds of shallow people.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

This thread is the internet version of a laugh track. 

[Alan Klein]

There's no problem with fair criticism where criticism is due. Without checks and balances, we will learn nothing and we will repeat our mistakes from the past.

Fake news is not criticism, it is fake news and it's usually intended to distract from, or distort, the objective truth. It is also aimed at reducing confidence in serious investigative journalism. It is aimed at making matters worse.

Those who indulge in spreading such fake news will be exposed for the despicable personalities they are.

Cheers,
Bart

You sound like Trump.

[Alan Klein]

I think it's more insidious than that - it's propagation of a whole mass of lies with the intention that the population be utterly confused about what the truth is, and become too disoriented to resist the ruling class.

All sides practice this.  What balances it out is the amount from each point of view.  Unfortunately, the media is biased to the left.  So we get a distorted balance. 

[Rob C]

I think it's more insidious than that - it's propagation of a whole mass of lies with the intention that the population be utterly confused about what the truth is, and become too disoriented to resist the ruling class.

But look, if you refer to current US politics, the ruling class is ever the same, only the names and flags change from Elephant to Donkey and back, and so on for ever. Ditto the UK, where in one case they favour Savile Row and in another, publicly at least, Marks & Sparks. But in the end, it's ever the same mindset harnessed to the party that may promote them to its head. That's pretty interchageable too, best illustrated by Tony Bair, who would have made an excellent helmsman for any party with a chance. The only inevitable loosers are the Michael Foots of this world, where they have no charisma worth squat. How could anyone have voted for such a cat?

Taking your thesis to its logical ending means you can only prefer a state of uncontrolled, aimless anarchy. You invest "the population" with one helluva lot of political nous! Which is best illustrated, no doubt, by the suicide pact it is making with Farage et al.

[jeremyrh]

But look, if you refer to current US politics, the ruling class is ever the same, only the names and flags change from Elephant to Donkey and back, and so on for ever. Ditto the UK, where in one case they favour Savile Row and in another, publicly at least, Marks & Sparks. But in the end, it's ever the same mindset harnessed to the party that may promote them to its head. That's pretty interchageable too, best illustrated by Tony Bair, who would have made an excellent helmsman for any party with a chance. The only inevitable loosers are the Michael Foots of this world, where they have no charisma worth squat. How could anyone have voted for such a cat?

Taking your thesis to its logical ending means you can only prefer a state of uncontrolled, aimless anarchy. You invest "the population" with one helluva lot of political nous! Which is best illustrated, no doubt, by the suicide pact it is making with Farage et al.

I was thinking more of Russia and China as the frontrunners in this trend, but with the rest of us following on as the oligarchs observe the boundless benefits to be reaped. The current concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% is only a taste of what is to come.

[Alan Klein]

But look, if you refer to current US politics, the ruling class is ever the same, only the names and flags change from Elephant to Donkey and back, and so on for ever. Ditto the UK, where in one case they favour Savile Row and in another, publicly at least, Marks & Sparks. But in the end, it's ever the same mindset harnessed to the party that may promote them to its head. That's pretty interchageable too, best illustrated by Tony Bair, who would have made an excellent helmsman for any party with a chance. The only inevitable loosers are the Michael Foots of this world, where they have no charisma worth squat. How could anyone have voted for such a cat?

Taking your thesis to its logical ending means you can only prefer a state of uncontrolled, aimless anarchy. You invest "the population" with one helluva lot of political nous! Which is best illustrated, no doubt, by the suicide pact it is making with Farage et al.

Interestingly, the American founders were almost as distrustful of democracy as they were of centralized power.  They thought people would vote the country into bankruptcy which is happening.  The original constitution rules had each state's legislature elect their two senators.  That was changed to popular vote in the 1900's by constitutional amendment.  We all know about the presidential electors, another way to prevent the passion of democracy. As recently as 2016, the Democrat party had superdelegates to pick who would run for president. They didn't have to follow the popular vote in the nomination process. The Democrat party was not Democratic.  It was afraid of its own members who might vote for someone a little crazy like Sanders.  Hillary had wrapped up all of the superdelegates getting their commitment to vote for her before one popular vote  was made.  Sanders didn't know what hit him.  He lost before he started.  I think they changed their rules for 2020.

[Alan Klein]

I was thinking more of Russia and China as the frontrunners in this trend, but with the rest of us following on as the oligarchs observe the boundless benefits to be reaped. The current concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% is only a taste of what is to come.

Well, the leaders of the Democrat party wants to spread the wealth around.  Of course, they're referring to your wealth not theirs.  So not much is going to happen with the 1% regardless of which party wins. 

[Alan Klein]

The Democrat nomination for 2020 presidential election is starting to look like the Republican process for the 2016 election.  Most of the candidates are round 1% in the polls.  How do you look in the mirror in the morning and try to get going for the day when you know 99% of the people don't like you?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/harris-warren-2020-dems-poll-1396656

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So not much is going to happen with the 1% regardless of which party wins.

Didn't they get a tax break to make them even wealthier?
It looks like it does matter which party wins.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Didn't they get a tax break to make them even wealthier?
It looks like it does matter which party wins.

Cheers,
Bart

The rich Democrats as well as Republicans are also smiling all the way to the bank. Do you really think that the Democrats will change tax laws that really hurt the rich if they win?  They've been in charge on and off for decades helping democrats as well as republicans get rich. What's going to change?  Do you think Kamala Harris is going to do that?  I'd be shocked.  Remember it was Democrat President Clinton who did away with the Glass-Steagall Banking Act to help the rich get richer and coincidentally setting the foundation for the 2008 recession. 

[Peter McLennan]

Remember it was Democrat President Clinton who did away with the Glass-Steagall Banking Act to help the rich get richer and coincidentally setting the foundation for the 2008 recession.

As the financial prospectus documents frequently say: "Past performance does not necessarily indicate future performance"

[James Clark]

Remember it was Democrat President Clinton who did away with the Glass-Steagall Banking Act to help the rich get richer and coincidentally setting the foundation for the 2008 recession.

Ah, the benefits of deregulation!

[Alan Klein]

There has to be balance.  So don't want to overdo things.