Politics

[Red Leg]

The perfect pairing - an EV and solar panels.

Rooftop Solar Power Has a Dark Side

The companies that own many leased solar systems on Americans' rooftops are going out of business, leaving homeowners in a lurch.

time.com

 

[Doubleplay]

One of these clips that says so much. Gubarev, a Russian sometimes politician and sometimes soldier from the Donbas with a large Russian internet following, is seemingly rational - for a while - but it is worth watching to the end. He and his ilk are the creatures with whom the neo-isolationists blindly following Trump apparently want to enable. Again I ask, in what world is it in US national interests to support the goals and objectives of the Russian State and creatures like this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/16vpl4q

Trump following neo-nationalists are confused.
They don't know the difference between being a nationalist and a patriot.
They have no idea about the national interests of our country.

 

[Brent in Az]

Goodbye to Milley. Now he can fade off into obscurity, and write a book about how Trump hurt his feelings, and is living rent free in his tiny military mind.

 

[Red Leg]

Trump following neo-nationalists are confused.
They don't know the difference between being a nationalist and a patriot.
They have no idea about the national interests of our country.

I am a Reagan conservative and old enough to have been an original one. Though he did not use the term, like him, I am an "America First" patriot. From a Reagan perspective, "America First" would mean defending American national interests wherever they are threatened - whether the southern border or blunting Russian ambitions in Europe or thwarting Chinese expansion in the Pacific. A prudent national grand strategy ranks threats, interests, and opportunities based on the imperatives of geopolitics rather than abstract, vague, and unenforceable principles or worse yet, politically driven slogans. The idea that our prosperity can be assured by hiding behind a border wall or two oceans is a definition of ignorance.

What is worse is the inability of so many to separate political distaste for either Biden or Trump - yes democrats can be just as ignorant as maga republicans - from a clear-headed appraisal of our critical national interests. This sort of march of the uninformed on both sides is both dangerous and too easily galvanized by the demagogues who place personal, movement, or party interests ahead of those of the country.

I have no use for this administration, but the national interests of this country transcend political party or candidate. I think Biden's lack of action to secure our borders is just as harmful as Trump's inability to separate his personal prejudices from what is in the best interests of the nation.

These are issues which most people are unwilling or unable to actually debate. It is so much easier to make up sophomoric memes and nicknames or resort to name calling or take their ball and go home rather than to actually articulate a geopolitical policy and how it might be achieved. For instance, I am open to trying to comprehend how supporting Russian goals in Europe is an American national interests. To date that argument has been expressed as I hate "Bidet" and "demorats." Pretty much my point exactly.

 

[Wheels]

 

[fourfive8]

Goodbye to Milley. Now he can fade off into obscurity, and write a book about how Trump hurt his feelings, and is living rent free in his tiny military mind.

None too soon for the treasonous b-tard that he is.

 

[Doubleplay]

I am a Reagan conservative and old enough to have been an original one. Though he did not use the term, like him, I am an "America First" patriot. From a Reagan perspective, "America First" would mean defending American national interests wherever they are threatened - whether the southern border or blunting Russian ambitions in Europe or thwarting Chinese expansion in the Pacific. A prudent national grand strategy ranks threats, interests, and opportunities based on the imperatives of geopolitics rather than abstract, vague, and unenforceable principles or worse yet, politically driven slogans. The idea that our prosperity can be assured by hiding behind a border wall or two oceans is a definition of ignorance.

What is worse is the inability of so many to separate political distaste for either Biden or Trump - yes democrats can be just as ignorant as maga republicans - from a clear-headed appraisal of our critical national interests. This sort of march of the uninformed on both sides is both dangerous and too easily galvanized by the demagogues who place personal, movement, or party interests ahead of those of the country.

I have no use for this administration, but the national interests of this country transcend political party or candidate. I think Biden's lack of action to secure our borders is just as harmful as Trump's inability to separate his personal prejudices from what is in the best interests of the nation.

These are issues which most people are unwilling or unable to actually debate. It is so much easier to make up sophomoric memes and nicknames or resort to name calling or take their ball and go home rather than to actually articulate a geopolitical policy and how it might be achieved. For instance, I am open to trying to comprehend how supporting Russian goals in Europe is an American national interests. To date that argument has been expressed as I hate "Bidet" and "demorats." Pretty much my point exactly.

I'm also old enough to remember when politicians cast aside their personal ambitions and agreed on the principles for the greater good of the country.
Things are different now.
People are polarized and idolizing crook puppet politicians like Biden or Trump and party establishments are playing along instead taking a firm stand.
I can't even recognize my party anymore.
They got taken hostage by extremists who doesn't even care to pay our troops who are in the harms way on a daily basis.

 

[Wathe208]

Another one of these certainties among the Trump community I am curious about. Exactly how is GEN Milley, a man who has been awarded the bronze star four times, a traitor? I agree he could have been far more forceful in defending military traditions and the history of our armed forces than he was, but then again, he was, through our constitution, subject to civilian authority and hence their agenda. So, how is he a traitor?

The two items (both of which I'd wager you're quite aware)

First, If he told Chinese General Li Zuocheng he would warn China of any impending attack upon them or their regime, that would be one.

Second, if he told his subordinates, and members of Congress that he would not obey nuclear launch orders from the President of the United States, that would be two.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT."

People change and allow petty personal feelings to guide their words and actions (pick any comment on this post). Past actions are not always a concrete guide to current actions. And, with the Democrats controlling the legal system, why would he not be so brazen?

 

[steve white]

Of course she was. The quote above was her comment with respect to the "assault rifle" legislation under Clinton which she championed. The second quote is BS.

The issue we all need to grapple with is not the view of a Feinstein, but get our heads around the fact the majority of her constituents fully supported her position. That majority has exercised their right to interpret the constitution pretty aggressively in that state with respect to guns for the last thirty years. That seems to be a steadily growing consensus among an ever growing part of the electorate across many states.

Our "God given rights" exist only so long, and only in such a way as voters and judges interpret them. It is why the founders decide to create the Bill of Rights rather than count on God. Those were political decisions, and political means exist to substantially change or reinterpret them. Newsome has already offered his vison of that mechanism through a new constitutional amendment. You can bet the person he choses will vigorously support those views.

Finally, we are a liberal majority of one away in SCOTUS from a reinterpretation of the 2d amendment focusing on its "militia" content.

I disagree--the founders called certain rights "inalienable", meaning they can't be taken away because they do not derive from or exist by the leave of government. They believed that those things were inviolate because they were bequeathed by God, not a monarchy or a government gone awry. The Bill of Rights contains some things which are not only out of the reach of legislation, but I believe should be protected from political manipulation--even to the point of bringing charges against those who constantly flout them, thus violating their oath to "protect and defend the CONSTITUTION." That oath does not say to protect and defend the latest political fad, or even the land or people, but, the constitution!

 

[steve white]

The study of psychology teaches us that when someone resorts to name calling, it usually speaks to feelings of inferiority and a feeling of inadequacy of the person doing the name calling.
People stoop to the process of name calling when they feel lesser and need to make themselves feel more powerful.
No doubt you are one of them.

Well, that's the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Ray B]

Trump following neo-nationalists
They
They .

Some people would be better at communicating their position if they focused on themselves instead of what they perceive others know or their intentions/motivations.

 

[JOHN GRENZ]

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

The two items (both of which I'd wager you're quite aware)

First, If he told Chinese General Li Zuocheng he would warn China of any impending attack upon them or their regime, that would be one.

Second, if he told his subordinates, and members of Congress that he would not obey nuclear launch orders from the President of the United States, that would be two.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT."

People change and allow petty personal feelings to guide their words and actions (pick any comment on this post). Past actions are not always a concrete guide to current actions. And, with the Democrats controlling the legal system, why would he not be so brazen?

Each if there is a big one But for sake of discussion let's presume they happened. In order for that to be the case:

First from I've read China claimed they had intelligence that we were about to attack them. And this led to the interaction between Milley and Zoocheng. I find it quite improbable that Trump was actually going to start a war with China to somehow retain office. And thus I think this supposed "intelligence" was a load of crap. But let's say this was out there and given all of the craziness going on at the time, would an attempt to de-escalate the situation and prevent a war be an act of treason?

But let's say for a moment that Trump was in fact considering a preemptive attack on China. That the intelligence was true. I can only see where that would be a disaster. I'll ask again, would an attempt to de-escalate the situation and prevent a war be an act of treason?

I see the same analysis when it comes to the possibility that Trump would've used nuclear weapons preemptively, only the situation becomes an existential issue for the entire world.

 

[steve white]

Trump following neo-nationalists are confused.
They don't know the difference between being a nationalist and a patriot.
They have no idea about the national interests of our country.

That's a straw man

 

[Doubleplay]

I disagree--the founders called certain rights "inalienable", meaning they can't be taken away because they do not derive from or exist by the leave of government. They believed that those things were inviolate because they were bequeathed by God, not a monarchy or a government gone awry. The Bill of Rights contains some things which are not only out of the reach of legislation, but I believe should be protected from political manipulation--even to the point of bringing charges against those who constantly flout them, thus violating their oath to "protect and defend the CONSTITUTION." That oath does not say to protect and defend the latest political fad, or even the land or people, but, the constitution!

God?
The US constitution never explicitly mentions God or Divine.
They must be rolling in their graves.

 

[steve white]

God?
The US constitution never explicitly mentions God or Divine.
They must be rolling in their graves.

Read the declaration of independence. maybe study up on the founders--Wallbuilders is an excellent resource, IF you don't already know it all.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

God?
The US constitution never explicitly mentions God or Divine.
They must be rolling in their graves.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Not from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence. How do you define Creator? I'm quite certain they weren't referring to people's parents.

 

[Dirtdart]

Show some respect.
She was a USA senator and as far as I know never suspected of treason or bribery.

Didn't she have a driver for many years that turned out to be a Chinese spy?

 

[Ray B]

Point of clarification: I think the above entry posted by Steve White quoting Phoenix Phil is actually addressing comments made by Doubleplay.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I would appreciate some not taking it upon themselves to label former Trump supporters. They are not a homogenous block of Neo-isolationists, etc. They may have stood upon the shoulders of the Tea Party, but for sure, if Trump were to die tomorrow they would rally behind the first other leader to oppose the swamp and restore fiscal sanity to the nation.

I'm going to presume you weren't pointing your finger at me with that last part. I don't care much for the name calling or insults that get thrown around in this thread, and I think I've avoided ever doing so.

I may disagree with someone and strongly so on their opinion. But I try to stick to facts and not inject emotion into such discussions.