Politics

[Red Leg]

Thanks for the clarification. I was aware there were offices in the Capitol but didn't realize Pelosi still had an office in the Capitol since Jeffries took her leadership position. I had only skimmed Pelosi's statement and missed the word Capitol.

Kicking Hoyer out as well as Pelosi makes sense. McHenry was hacked at the Democrats for voting against McCarthy and he sent a message.

I am somewhat familiar with Capitol Hill, having worked in Cannon HOB for a Congressman from the 5th District of Oklahoma. I probably even walked by a now famous fire alarm numerous times and was never tempted to pull it.

Then you are well aware of the clock lights, open air trolley, and mad rush for votes. Not sure how they were carting Feinstein back and forth. Which congressman? I worked closest with Watts back in the day.

 

[Hunt anything]

I’m convinced that the Republicans will need a complete meltdown in order to start over. Losing the House, Senate and Presidency in the most humiliating and crushing way. Then purge and rebuild. It’s their only hope now.

IMO if the GOP looses all 3 branches in 2024 in due time the Dems will have enough judicial appointments that there won’t be a country as we know it left. New states that will solidify the dems majority and as many Supreme Court judges as they need to overturn any thing they don’t agree with.

 

[Brent in Az]

you claimed brighter minds held your opinion.. but failed to provide the names and credentials of those minds as asked..

whether you like it or not, or agree with their positions (or have the ability or willingness to try to understand them) the fellows and experts at places like Brookings and Hoover are truly among the brightest on the planet..

https://www.brookings.edu/experts/

https://www.hoover.org/fellows

I dont agree with everything published by either of those think tanks (or any well regarded geo political expert or strategist for that matter).. but certainly listening to people with decades of related experience, most of whom have a decade or more of formal and informal education in their specific area of study, who literally study these sort of things as a full time profession, that are relied upon by global organizations ranging from the biggest corporations on the planet, to developed country federal governments, to state governments, city governments, to high net worth individuals looking to make large investments, etc.. so that they can make correct decisions to further the interests of their respective organizations.. is worth consideration..

who again is it that has the brighter mind that has espoused your position?

As far as those that fear Putins nuclear retaliation threats......it seems just about everybody that claims they do not want any open conflict with Russia. Including NATO.

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2022/07/07/the-consequences-of-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-for-international-security-nato-and-beyond/index.html

As far as the the opinion of the brighter minds, Ill have to find the articles.

In the meantime I'll wait for logical facts on what the U.S Ukrainian objective is, besides money of course.

 

[Brent in Az]

Russian hawks push Putin to escalate as US crosses more ‘red lines’

Timeline: The Kremlin’s critics are growing louder as Moscow fails to back up threats against Washington’s involvement in the war.

responsiblestatecraft.org

 

[Red Leg]

Pretty good even-handed article for those cheering the demise of McCarthy and resulting chaos within the republican party.

What Happens When the Dog Catches the Car

redstate.com

 

[Red Leg]

Russian hawks push Putin to escalate as US crosses more ‘red lines’

Timeline: The Kremlin’s critics are growing louder as Moscow fails to back up threats against Washington’s involvement in the war.

responsiblestatecraft.org

My problem with many of the shrillest voices on the right is they absorb information uncritically. The Quincy Institute (think tank), which publishes this, is less than five years old and much of its founding funding support came from an interesting mix from George Soros and Charles Koch. It claims to be opposed to military industrial complex among other neo-isolationist inspired bogeymen to include Israel and the nefarious Israeli lobby.

None of this means their epistles shouldn't be read, but like most things they should be read critically.

 

[jpr9954]

Thanks for the clarification.

McHenry certainly felt betrayed by his friends across the isle voting against McCarthy. Kicking Pelosi out of the Capitol and slamming the gavel down like a blacksmith.

McHenry used to be my Congressman before redistricting. While I supported him, I didn't think he had it in him to do so. I'm glad to see him showing some spine.

If the offices are intended for the immediate past speaker, then wouldn't that be McCarthy as opposed to Pelosi?

 

[jpr9954]

This appointment looks like a presidential run in the making instead of anything for the people of California. Blacks make up 6% of the California population. 3% are women. This appointment is a finger in the dyke to hold the black vote together nationally for the Democrats in 2024. Trump is slowly sucking the black vote from the Democrats.

According to this post by a Harvard law prof, the appointee must be a resident of the state from which they are appointed. He didn't think Laphonsa Butler was eligible as she remained a citizen of Maryland under the Constitution.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/03/can-a-marylander-be-the-senator-from-california/

But then when did Newsom let a little something like the Constitution get in his way...

 

[Wheels]

Then you are well aware of the clock lights, open air trolley, and mad rush for votes. Not sure how they were carting Feinstein back and forth. Which congressman? I worked closest with Watts back in the day.

Yep. When the time gets to five minutes, the Congressman is running out the door yelling at the legislative assistant which way to vote, the l.a. doesn't know so he is calling the Whip's l.a. but the Whip's l.a. doesn't know and tells the Congressman's l.a. to call a lobbyist to find out which way to vote can get a bit hectic. (only remember that once)

It also shows idealistic, impressionable young men how the sausage is made, giving them a cynical bent. (which you still probably see from me on this thread from time to time)

Watts was an even better person than he was a quarterback. Republican's had a pretty good flag football team with the Watts to Largent combination.

I worked for Mickey Edwards in 1979.

The thing I regret most about my time on Capitol Hill was turning down last minute tickets from Henry Bellmon's office to the joint session of Congress when Carter spoke trying to get Salt II passed. I played in a game of ultimate frisbee instead.(half my job was responding to constituents regarding Salt II)

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

What is the situation in Ukraine, are the Ukranians going to be able to achieve anything significant in the south given the time left?

 

[mdwest]

As far as those that fear Putins nuclear retaliation threats......it seems just about everybody that claims they do not want any open conflict with Russia. Including NATO.

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2022/07/07/the-consequences-of-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-for-international-security-nato-and-beyond/index.html

As far as the the opinion of the brighter minds, Ill have to find the articles.

In the meantime I'll wait for logical facts on what the U.S Ukrainian objective is, besides money of course.

Did you bother to read the NATO link you posted?

It clearly states that the threat of nukes is extremely low (not higher than 5%).. that puts the threat very low on the matrix... and really isnt any different than considering the Russian nuclear threat in any other situation or scenario..


I'll also ask if you actually read the brookings or hoover articles previously posted.. they make very clear assertions as to the reason the US should be involved.. that are very similar to what @Red Leg and others have already stated here, but you seem to not be able to comprehend..

"in late spring some US strategists and officials advocating permanently weakening Russia as a strategic goal"

the brookings article speaks to the detriment to the West of a Sino-Russian bloc in geopolitical order if the Russians arent thwarted.. and supporting the ukranians is a strategy to thwart this..

it speaks to Russias relatively small GDP, but their scientific capabilities and what its minority partnership value would be to the Chinese (a clear threat to both our economy and our security)... The US has a strategic interest in not seeing this happen..

It speaks to Russias permanent position on the UN Security Council and the reasoning that the UN really cant position itself to counter balance a Sino-Russian block or even Russia solely.. which necessitates other response... (from US and European countries)..


The hoover article is much more militarily focused.. and actually counters your earlier assertion that the west should just send in troops and get it over with.. hoover, known to be a conservative leaning think tank is clear that the west likely doesn't have the ability to drive the russians out of ukraine without creating some serious problems for itself (similar to the problems the russians are now facing.. like running out of weapons systems... when those weapons systems would be needed to deal with other potential near peer threats like... wait for it... China....).. and that supporting the ukranians are the cheaper option to obtain the same goal brookings speaks to.. weakening russia, as a strategic goal..

the hoover article ends with:

"The most likely outcome is a humiliating armistice. Paradoxically, that may redound (contribute greatly) to the long-term benefit of the United States."

If you cant derive what the strategic interests are from those two articles, you clearly either dont want to, or lack the ability.. they are written at a very simplified and basic level..

that doesnt mean you have to agree with them.. I disagree with quite a bit of strategy I see coming out of the pentagon these days, and havent seen anything that resembles reasonable strategy on most items addressed by the white house most days..

but the rationale, recommended methodology (generalized) for execution, and the reasoning behind over arching strategic initiatives related to ukraine are indeed present.. if you bother to read whats been put in front of you..

 

[Zambezi]

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.

Well said!
To dumb it down a bit for people like me it's like having a siege mentality. You have two large oceans and a strong southern border that's all one needs. You are happy within the walls and to hell with the rest. Then those within the walls run out of food and water (read markets and resources). Then you want to open the gates (metaphorical, not borders) and trade but you find that Russia/China/ et al own all those markets and resources while you were safe behind the walls of isolationism. You could have directed the world outside the walls but you put "yourself first" because it saved you a few gold sovereigns.

You hated your leader so you didn't support the foreign powers that were fighting your enemy for you. You didn't understand that all empires in history employed their vassal states or allies to fight for your interests for the price of a few pieces of silver.

When you emerge from the siege who is controlling the commodities of Ukraine (wheat, oils etc) your or your enemy? Who emerges stronger, you or your enemies?

Maybe this is is too deep for some. Let me put it in caveman speak:

I pay you to fight my war. I don't lose lives. I benefit when the war is won.
(the southern border is as far from this issue as abortion is from protecting 2A)

Get it now?

 

[Brent in Az]

Did you bother to read the NATO link you posted?

It clearly states that the threat of nukes is extremely low (not higher than 5%).. that puts the threat very low on the matrix... and really isnt any different than considering the Russian nuclear threat in any other situation or scenario..


I'll also ask if you actually read the brookings or hoover articles previously posted.. they make very clear assertions as to the reason the US should be involved.. that are very similar to what @Red Leg and others have already stated here, but you seem to not be able to comprehend..

"in late spring some US strategists and officials advocating permanently weakening Russia as a strategic goal"

the brookings article speaks to the detriment to the West of a Sino-Russian bloc in geopolitical order if the Russians arent thwarted.. and supporting the ukranians is a strategy to thwart this..

it speaks to Russias relatively small GDP, but their scientific capabilities and what its minority partnership value would be to the Chinese (a clear threat to both our economy and our security)... The US has a strategic interest in not seeing this happen..

It speaks to Russias permanent position on the UN Security Council and the reasoning that the UN really cant position itself to counter balance a Sino-Russian block or even Russia solely.. which necessitates other response... (from US and European countries)..


The hoover article is much more militarily focused.. and actually counters your earlier assertion that the west should just send in troops and get it over with.. hoover, known to be a conservative leaning think tank is clear that the west likely doesn't have the ability to drive the russians out of ukraine without creating some serious problems for itself (similar to the problems the russians are now facing.. like running out of weapons systems... when those weapons systems would be needed to deal with other potential near peer threats like... wait for it... China....).. and that supporting the ukranians are the cheaper option to obtain the same goal brookings speaks to.. weakening russia, as a strategic goal..

the hoover article ends with:

"The most likely outcome is a humiliating armistice. Paradoxically, that may redound (contribute greatly) to the long-term benefit of the United States."

If you cant derive what the strategic interests are from those two articles, you clearly either dont want to, or lack the ability.. they are written at a very simplified and basic level..

that doesnt mean you have to agree with them.. I disagree with quite a bit of strategy I see coming out of the pentagon these days, and havent seen anything that resembles reasonable strategy on most items addressed by the white house most days..

but the rationale, recommended methodology (generalized) for execution, and the reasoning behind over arching strategic initiatives related to ukraine are indeed present.. if you bother to read whats been put in front of you..

Did I read it? Well ..... according to your insulting comments, I guess I don't have the ability to read or comprehend anything that technical.

Social media is full of condescending armchair experts. Just ask Red leg.

 

[Tanner Lee]

What is the situation in Ukraine, are the Ukranians going to be able to achieve anything significant in the south given the time left?

It doesn’t seem to be a very cut and dry issue.

From the different places I listen to like the institute for the study of war, everyone seems to be in a general consensus if they cannot do something before winter then their potential last chance will be in the spring.

Also considering that the Russians have prepared more lines behind the one the Ukrainians are hitting against currently, it seems that a break through is less and less likely to truly mean much.

Though as history has shown anything can happen but it seems that a negotiated peace seems more likely especially if financial support from the US ends or is drastically cut.

 

[Red Leg]

What is the situation in Ukraine, are the Ukranians going to be able to achieve anything significant in the south given the time left?

I think it depends upon which timeline is being considered. If it is the tactical timeline, then they have about two - four weeks before the fall mud sets in greatly limiting mobile operations. The onset of that weather does seem to be a bit late this year. They will not reach the sea or retake Bakhmut by then. True armored maneuver ops will be possible again when the ground fully freezes in late December or early January. Last winter neither side attempted very much under those conditions.

The strategic timeline is more complex. I think there is a general supposition in this country that Ukraine and Europe would be forced to seek an immediate negotiated settlement if US support were greatly curtailed. I am not sure that is correct. NATO, less the US, is already providing aid to Ukraine equal to this country (try to find a Trump supporter who realizes that fact). In terms of percentage of GDP they are providing far more. I suspect the threat posed by Russia will hardly appear any less to Europe if the US resorts to picking lint from its navel rather than continuing to pursue its national interests.

An extended war of attrition is, however, not in Ukraine's interests. From a sheer manpower perspective, that would favor Russia. Certainly Russia is trying very hard to create the impression it is preparing for such a conflict.

I suspect Russian commitment to such an enduring conflict is actually fairly brittle. Putin does not dare call for general mobilization. His military industry is capable of delivering approximately a 10th of the MBTs and AFVs needed to replace losses. That means ever greater reliance on outdated equipment. As the UK MOD noted yesterday, the Black Sea Fleet has essentially been defeated and withdrawn to Russian waters. Ukrainian Special Forces carried out a seaborne raid on the Crimean Coast last night.

Over the next 18 months, I seriously question the Kremlin's ability to actually sustain support for the Special Military Operation both within the military and the general population. We will see.

It is important to remember that this war will end in negotiations. Neither side has the military power to dictate peace in either Moscow or Kyiv. But the outcome of those negotiations will be very different based upon the respective military and economic positions at the time they begin.

 

[mdwest]

Did I read it? Well ..... according to your insulting comments, I guess I don't have the ability to read or comprehend anything that technical.

Social media is full of condescending armchair experts. Just ask Red leg.

lol.. if youre insulted by that... im amazed that you can be bothered to leave the house most days.. life must be very difficult..

regarding armchair experts.. id offer that based on commentary you post here with frequency, that perhaps you take a look inward before slinging accusations outward..

i'd further offer, that while we are all certainly entitled to our own opinions, and part of the beauty of the US is that we are (for the most part) able to speak those opinions any time we please.. that we do indeed have some actual experts on military strategy, the defense industrial complex, military tactics, unconventional warfare, asymmetric warfare, geo-political strategy, geo-political affairs, etc. that frequent these forums..

you dont have to be too terribly situationally aware to know who those people are..

the people that come to mind (including @Red Leg, but not limited to him alone), each individually bring decades of real world experience in those fields.. as well as advanced educations in those fields.. and often work with and/or associate with others that are known to be highly experienced in those fields.. many of them have actual skin in the game (both literal and figurative).. they have physically been in these places... know the people on the ground.. have risked their own personal health/welfare/material assets, etc.. as opposed to being an armchair anything..

 

[Red Leg]

Did I read it? Well ..... according to your insulting comments, I guess I don't have the ability to read or comprehend anything that technical.

Social media is full of condescending armchair experts. Just ask Red leg.

There are several people here that are than willing and able to discuss or debate these issues with you. That seems to be something that doesn't interest you. So you resort to name calling.

Something the echo chamber crowds right or left also don't seem to do a lot is pay attention to the actual source behind some article or assertion. Let's take the article you posted.

Like several others here, I am actually a bit more than an armchair expert. For instance, I would happily put my credentials up against young Connor Echols who is the journalist who wrote the article you posted. He earned a BA from Northwestern in 2020 and according to LinkedIn apparently just finished studying Arabic in Amman in '22. So why should anyone pay attention to his conclusions with respect to anything but university life?

 

[mdwest]

It is important to remember that this war will end in negotiations. Neither side has the military power to dictate peace in either Moscow or Kyiv. But the outcome of those negotiations will be very different based upon the respective military and economic positions at the time they begin.

I think this is the point that most are failing to understand when considering the global strategic value of very specific outcomes desired by both NATO and the US.

A weakened Russia is indeed in the interest of both NATO and the US. A weakened Sino-Russian alliance is in the interest of both NATO and the US.

How things have played out in Ukraine have already influenced and impacted both of those items. How things ultimately end however is of far greater importance.

 

[Tam Dl]

give me a list of those brighter minds... I'd like to know their credentials and qualifications...

Happy to enlighten you on US and NATO objectives and supporting strategic goals (one reference from a politically neutral think tank that is globally regarded.. the other from an established conservative think tank that should appeal to your conservative ideals)..

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-are-the-wests-strategic-goals-in-the-ukraine-war/

What Is America’s Strategic Interest In Ukraine?

As the Ukraine war enters its twelfth month, the military situation remains a stalemate, but a stalemate that gives the political advantage to Russia. If Russia can hold most of the territory in the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson that it annexed on Sept. 30, 2022, it will...

www.hoover.org

The point about UKRs objective to regain turf is exactly that.. its THEIR OBJECTIVE... While important to US interests, I assure you that this is not the primary objective for the US (read the linked articles/reports above)..

I read the Brookings article and there are a lot of problems with that one, in my humble opinion.

The title is What Are the West's Strategic Goals in the Ukraine War? One might expect that the author answers this question. One soon realizes that he is confused on the mater, not only as the world turns and different realities will emerge, but also at any given snapshot in the war's history. War is good we can make sense of it later.

1) The question on the table was US objectives. This is an article about the West. No doubt there is an overlap, but they are not the same as US objectives. He goes on to point out how The West went ahead without involving the UN, or large areas of the globe in The South. He advances a global search for legitimacy and meaning.

2) What is the West in these divided times and do all those players have the same objectives, if they did it might not be necessary to blow up their gas lines, though come to think of it, that might indicate they were on the same page to the degree they had foreknowledge.

3) "At the beginning of the war, the Western allies emphasized that defending the United Nations Charter and democracy were their primary objectives." This is a switch from the overthrow of an earlier Ukrainian democratic administration. These are obviously laughable goals, nothing could be further from their minds. But it also raises another mater, on language. He doesn't say these are the goals, he merely says they put emphasis on these goals. Elsewhere he speaks of narratives (story telling); "overall settlements" of a specious variety that would require a victory well beyond the Ukraine; One gets that "some U.S. strategists and officials advocated", well after things were underway, for certain strategic goals.; Then he seems to have his own pet projects he would like to fit into the picture.

4) One needs a lexicon for terms so that they current meanings can be understood. "Does the West... envisage a “victory” in Ukraine that lays the foundations for a world in which democracy is more secure and global governance more inclusive and effective?" Democracy and more inclusive global governance are pretty much opposites. They are like two locomotives that may be traveling to the same destination, but not in the same direction... When one sees a litany that includes democracy and global administration, you can be sure that democracy is the part they are not praying for.

5) It is an odd article that celebrates the role the Soviets played in alleviating colonialism's effects, while bemoaning that the bribes to 3rd world dictators have as yet not been paid. But you can see the connection. China and Russian do not want to be part of a global system of administration that is being organized outside their borders, and that is why it is worth isolating them when possible. I think you can generally bet safely on BIG. There is likely to be a global administrative system of government. People today do not want it. Getting there will require a great deal of corruption. It is going to happen. When some of the smartest people in the world can't seem to make themselves understood, there is normally a reason.

 

[Tam Dl]

A weakened Russia is indeed in the interest of both NATO and the US. A weakened Sino-Russian alliance is in the interest of both NATO and the US.

"In late spring, some U.S. strategists and officials advocated permanently weakening Russia as a strategic goal, although it is not clear whether this would still be an objective in the event of regime change in Russia."

Brookings article seems old, and unsure relative to the objective you list.