The last one I got was about Biden and coal and to click a link.So they are just asking for money?I’ve been getting texts asking for money from the RNC about every other week now.
Seems like they are running a pretty bare bones operation, just blasting out donation requests, not seeking volunteers for phone banking or canvassing. That takes local organizing and paid campaign workers on the ground.
I get stuff like thisThe last one I got was about Biden and coal and to click a link.So they are just asking for money?I’ve been getting texts asking for money from the RNC about every other week now.
Seems like they are running a pretty bare bones operation, just blasting out donation requests, not seeking volunteers for phone banking or canvassing. That takes local organizing and paid campaign workers on the ground.
I assume it’s just asking for money.
Queue Nancy outrage
From the article: President Trump demanded a reporter asking a question at a Monday press conference remove his mask. When Jeff Mason of Reuters started to speak, the president interrupted him and said: “You’re going to have to take that off, please. You can take it off. How many feet are you away?”
Mason said he would speak louder but Trump was not satisfied. “Well, if you don’t take it off, you’re very muffled, so if you would take it off, it would be a lot easier,” he said.
Mason then raised his voice and said, “Is that better?” Trump, looking none too thrilled and not wearing a mask himself, replied, “It’s... better, yeah.” Later in the press conference on the North Portico of the White House, when another reporter took off his mask to answer a question, Trump pointedly remarked, “You sound so clear.”
Um, Trump lost 6 points and it’s a good thing? Also, the March numbers had the media less trustworthy too. He framed that tweet in a particularly ridiculous manner. The bigger thing I see is that the CDC’s rep has declined significantly.Thought this was fairly interesting...it's some mental gymnastics, but if Trump can somehow unhook himself from this virus, well, oh boy...
Hack article, but really?Trump Claims ‘Sophisticated Friends’ Say He’s ‘Most Innocent’ President Ever
I just listened to Jeffrey Goldberg (author of the recent military hit-piece) give an interview where he stated, with absolute conviction, that historically it's been the case that the military leaders are the ones forced to dissuade the civilian/political leaders from going to war. Dare I say it, but this is Orwellian ****.It's incredible how uneducated our media is.
Also, can you think of what he could possibly be referencing with that comment? He just blurted it out as though it was common knowledge, maybe he's talking about Powell's tepid resistance to endorsing the Iraq invasion? The only real famous clash that I can think of between the military and the WH was the Cuban missile crisis, where it was actually the extreme opposite where the military wanted start nuking people.In 2002, Goldberg's "The Great Terror" published in The New Yorker argued that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein was significant, discussing the possible connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as well as the Iraqi nuclear program, averring that there was "some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon ... There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons."[22]
In a late 2002 debate in Slate on the question "Should the U.S. invade Iraq?", Goldberg argued in favor of an invasion on a moral basis, writing, "So: Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler in power today—and the first one since Hitler—to commit chemical genocide. Is that enough of a reason to remove him from power? I would say yes, if 'never again' is in fact actually to mean 'never again.'"[77]
Glenn Greenwald called Goldberg "one of the leading media cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq", claiming Goldberg had "compiled a record of humiliating falsehood-dissemination in the run-up to the war that rivaled Judy Miller's both in terms of recklessness and destructive impact."[78] In 2008, in an article in Slate entitled "How Did I Get Iraq Wrong?", Goldberg explained the reasons behind his initial support of the Iraq War and wrote that he "didn't realize how incompetent the Bush administration could be."[79]
Yeah, this is what I mean when I talk about the social justice movement idolizing bad people. Blake was a violent sexual predator and abuser that was wanted for raping someone. Now, he is going to have book tours and be held on the same pedestal as other dignitaries like Assata Shakur and Mike Brown.Is it possible to say what happened to Blake was bad and should not happen to anyone without making him out to be the Dalai Lama?
I am in the midst of reading David Halberstam's magnum opus on the Korean War, a war I didn't really know all that much about to be honest (which is why I picked up the book) and it is interesting how much hubris, intentional ignorance, lack of control, etc... led to a completely unnecessary three-year war that should have been over in six months.I just listened to Jeffrey Goldberg (author of the recent military hit-piece) give an interview where he stated, with absolute conviction, that historically it's been the case that the military leaders are the ones forced to dissuade the civilian/political leaders from going to war. Dare I say it, but this is Orwellian ****.It's incredible how uneducated our media is.
I am guessing you are well aware of this, but I think there is some important context about this whole Goldberg atlantic piece brouhaha:
Also, can you think of what he could possibly be referencing with that comment? He just blurted it out as though it was common knowledge, maybe he's talking about Powell's tepid resistance to endorsing the Iraq invasion? The only real famous clash that I can think of between the military and the WH was the Cuban missile crisis, where it was actually the extreme opposite where the military wanted start nuking people.In 2002, Goldberg's "The Great Terror" published in The New Yorker argued that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein was significant, discussing the possible connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as well as the Iraqi nuclear program, averring that there was "some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon ... There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons."[22]
In a late 2002 debate in Slate on the question "Should the U.S. invade Iraq?", Goldberg argued in favor of an invasion on a moral basis, writing, "So: Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler in power today—and the first one since Hitler—to commit chemical genocide. Is that enough of a reason to remove him from power? I would say yes, if 'never again' is in fact actually to mean 'never again.'"[77]
Glenn Greenwald called Goldberg "one of the leading media cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq", claiming Goldberg had "compiled a record of humiliating falsehood-dissemination in the run-up to the war that rivaled Judy Miller's both in terms of recklessness and destructive impact."[78] In 2008, in an article in Slate entitled "How Did I Get Iraq Wrong?", Goldberg explained the reasons behind his initial support of the Iraq War and wrote that he "didn't realize how incompetent the Bush administration could be."[79]
Going to have to queue that up, I might be jumbling cold war non-sense events in my head, but wasn't the major impetus of that war because Truman had to act tough on communism because of the Chinese communist takeover?
I am in the midst of reading David Halberstam's magnum opus on the Korean War, a war I didn't really know all that much about to be honest (which is why I picked up the book) and it is interesting how much hubris, intentional ignorance, lack of control, etc... led to a completely unnecessary three-year war that should have been over in six months.
The Military Industrial Complex is a real thing.
Going to have to queue that up, I might be jumbling cold war non-sense events in my head, but wasn't the major impetus of that war because Truman had to act tough on communism because of the Chinese communist takeover?
I am in the midst of reading David Halberstam's magnum opus on the Korean War, a war I didn't really know all that much about to be honest (which is why I picked up the book) and it is interesting how much hubris, intentional ignorance, lack of control, etc... led to a completely unnecessary three-year war that should have been over in six months.
The Military Industrial Complex is a real thing.
Not going to pretend to be fully aware of how this all works, but it's the executive branch that would ultimately decide on when to deploy the military, so civilian leaders have made all the disastrous decisions. But can you imagine thinking that the military brass have been the cool heads in the room during these discussions?
MacArthur was incredibly full of himself after Inchon (really, all the time) and Truman didn't want to deal with MacArthur. MacArthur wanted a "full victory" and was unsatisfied with just taking Pyongyang and re-establishing the 38th parallel. He made under-equipped U.S. troops go to the Yalu where tens of thousands of Chinese troops were looking for a reason to get into a shooting war with the U.S. after Chiang Kai-Shek. Then when initial contact was made MacArthur and the general staff refused to believe the intelligence and by the time everyone admitted to what was happening on the ground all hell had broken loose and large numbers of American troops were dead and captured requiring a response.Going to have to queue that up, I might be jumbling cold war non-sense events in my head, but wasn't the major impetus of that war because Truman had to act tough on communism because of the Chinese communist takeover?
I am in the midst of reading David Halberstam's magnum opus on the Korean War, a war I didn't really know all that much about to be honest (which is why I picked up the book) and it is interesting how much hubris, intentional ignorance, lack of control, etc... led to a completely unnecessary three-year war that should have been over in six months.
The Military Industrial Complex is a real thing.
Not going to pretend to be fully aware of how this all works, but it's the executive branch that would ultimately decide on when to deploy the military, so civilian leaders have made all the disastrous decisions. But can you imagine thinking that the military brass have been the cool heads in the room during these discussions?
MacArthur was an absolute lunatic in that conflict. Not familiar with Chian Kai-Shek, so definitely a lot to gained from looking at that book. I've liked everything i've read by Halberstram.
MacArthur was incredibly full of himself after Inchon (really, all the time) and Truman didn't want to deal with MacArthur. MacArthur wanted a "full victory" and was unsatisfied with just taking Pyongyang and re-establishing the 38th parallel. He made under-equipped U.S. troops go to the Yalu where tens of thousands of Chinese troops were looking for a reason to get into a shooting war with the U.S. after Chiang Kai-Shek. Then when initial contact was made MacArthur and the general staff refused to believe the intelligence and by the time everyone admitted to what was happening on the ground all hell had broken loose and large numbers of American troops were dead and captured requiring a response.
The initial war (defense of South Korea) was definitely about Truman wanting to look tough on Communism, but there was really no reason for that to continue past October of 1950. Just a lot of dumb decisions bumbling the U.S. into a proto-Vietnam. Much like South Vietnam, South Korean leadership wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 147 guests
