The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

[Charles Austin]

From my hometown newspaper:
Violent parody video is a new low in today's political environment
Trump needs to do more than have White House staff issue impersonal condemnation.

http://www.startribune.com/video-is-a-new-low-in-today-s-political-environment/563093532/

[Terry W Culler]

I'll ask again, is it worse than throwing urine on people or assaulting people who are wearing those Make America Great Again baseball caps?  As for a new low, well there's an awful lot of "low" in American culture these days and it's rather difficult to know where we are in our race for the bottom.

[D. Engebretson]

It has also become an issue of the degree to which one "condemns" an action or the way one does so.  If the condemnation is not sufficient or done in the right way, then by association that person tacitly endorses the action, or in a lesser sense apparently does not share the outrage over the actions to the degree that most do. Perhaps we need guidelines in how to condemn.   

[revjagow]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/14/why-trump-is-absolutely-right-to-get-u-s-troops-out-of-syria/

An interesting opinion piece.

I may agree that there were good reasons to withdraw from Syria, but it seemed to me that the way we pulled out left a lot of  U.S. military and state officials flat footed. The reaction of other nations may have been expected, but the first reaction from everyone was surprise. So, was this the best our country could do? Or could better planning have helped create a more orderly pullout than the chaos we are witnessing, now?

The article also does not address that there were two things we were doing with our military that was helping to bring peace and stability to that area. In addition to the mop up operations against ISIS we were conducting with the Kurds, our military was doing joint patrols and exercises with the Turkish military on the border, trying to balance our commitments to both allies in the region. Until suddenly, we were not.

This article seems to be very dismissive of the potential threat that ISIS poses. I think it would be possible that with the fighters who escape, they could possibly take advantage of the chaos in Iraq, right now, or reinforce the small areas in Syria that they still control. These extremist organizations have proven to be extremely resilient and in the past, their terror network has been very creative in the damage they can cause from long distances away. If they are allowed to reconstitute in any meaningful way, will it be that long before they are able to launch attacks on our country, again? I don't have the answer to that, but I hope someone is looking at that data. The article identifies China as more of a threat in the long term. Maybe. But I think that while that threat is approaching, the terror cells of ISIS and affiliates still have not been neutralized.

So, I would say that the article is partly right in that there were some long term goals that support our pullout from Syria. I still contend that we went about the pullout in such a haphazard way that the President created a lose-lose-lose situation for our country. The Kurds feel stabbed in the back, Turkey is now being sanctioned, and we certainly have not diminished the threat of a future ISIS resurgence, which is why I suppose we were stretching the original 9-11 sanction to begin with. Not to mention that if there is ever a threat to our country like 9-11 that originates from this region, who would partner with us? So, I think meeting these possible long-term wins the article talks about does not balance the short term net losses we are taking. Loses that might have been avoided with better leadership and planning.

One further thing: The Kurds protected the Syrian Christians who fled from ISIS. Everyone seems to be ignoring their voice in this. The northern border is heavily populated with Christians, and the concern raised by a priest in the Christianity Today article I link to is that Erdogan's plan is to force out the Kurds, Christians and Yazidis in favor of Sunni Muslims. It seems our sudden pullout, in addition to harming our few alliances in the area, has unintentionally advanced the objectives of ISIS.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Culler writes (re the pro-Trump violent video):
I'll ask again, is it worse than throwing urine on people or assaulting people who are wearing those Make America Great Again baseball caps?
I respond:
Yes. It is.
It was shown at an “official” or semi-official campaign event attended by people close to the President. The man in office probably knew about it. It involved killing his opponents and showed the killings graphically. It was intentionally racist. It showed actual faces of Trump opponents as he murdered them. It was shown at an event on one of His properties.
P.S. I do not favor throwing any liquid on anyone. (That includes dumping Gatorade on coaches or spraying champagne on semi-naked ball players who have just won a stupid game.) Those hats? To quote a New Jersey friend whose name ends in a vowel: “Whassamatta U? This country, she’s already great.”

[David Garner]

I'll ask again, is it worse than throwing urine on people or assaulting people who are wearing those Make America Great Again baseball caps?  As for a new low, well there's an awful lot of "low" in American culture these days and it's rather difficult to know where we are in our race for the bottom.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1474295/Kathy-Griffin-beheads-Trump-photo-session-Tyler-Shields.html

(Insert the usual defenses about Kathy Griffin being a comedian -- because this was ever so funny -- blah, blah, blah).

[Charles Austin]

Again: the recent incident was at an official event, on His property, attended by His minions.

[David Garner]

Again: the recent incident was at an official event, on His property, attended by His minions.

I know.  Kathy Griffin is just a random lunatic who was acting on her own with no wider support beyond her own wingspan.

https://popcrush.com/jim-carrey-defends-kathy-griffin-bloody-trump-photo/

https://ew.com/news/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-trump-head-photo-tyler-shields/

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-defends-kathy-griffin-after-donald-trump-photo-controversy

https://people.com/politics/jerry-seinfeld-empathizes-kathy-griffin-over-bad-joke-about-donald-trump/

Also, it isn't that you are outraged, nor that others are outraged.  It's that in light of what Griffin did, and the multitude of things others have done, your outrage is one-sided and therefore fake.  You don't mind the most horrific comedic suggestions of violence, so long as it has the right target.

[Jim Butler]

Again: the recent incident was at an official event,

What is your definition of "official"? (Earlier you said "semi-official". What is your definition of that?) According to your first post, it was a "conference for his supporters" hosted by a "a pro-Trump group, American Priority." Is that an "official" organization? What makes this an "official event"? (Your emphasis.)

on His property,

So? Did the hotel staff see and approve the video before it was shown? What if they didn't approve of it? Could they have forbidden the group to show it? Could they have told them to leave? I'm really not sure what the relevance of this being at "His property" is. (Underlining and the odd capitalization of "his" yours.)

attended by His minions.

Did Trump personally approve this video? Did he know in advance that it was going to be shown? Did any of those who spoke. News reports state that they had no idea and weren't in the room when it was done. So what does the fact that " His minions" were there have to do with anything? (Underlining and the odd capitalization of "his" yours.)

Haven't you ever been asked to come to something and then got caught off guard by something that someone else said or did at the event? I have. Does that make you responsible for what that person did or what the hosting group did? Of course not.

Can you define "minion"?

BTW, did you complain this much about the movie "Death of a President" when it was released in 2006?

In another post, you state that "The man in office probably knew about it." Can you provide anything to substantiate this comment?

BTW, I liked the _Kingsmen_ movie (the second went way down). Seems to me that if anyone has the right to be upset about this this video, it's the filmmakers. And maybe Mark Millar.

[peter_speckhard]

What was intentionally racist about this dumb video? As I understand it, they took a scene of a slaughter from some cheesy sci-fi horror movie and superimposed media figures and corporate logos over the faces of the victims. I can easily see how that could be considered really despicable or just stupid, but how could it be intentionally racist?

[Terry W Culler]

I also note that Charles made fun of the hats favored by Trumps followers but never mentioned those who have been assaulted for wearing said hats. Unlike this video which I have not seen nor do I intend to see, these were real assaults on real people.  I guess they're just the wrong kind of people as opposed to the talking classes

[Steven Tibbetts]

1. The president apparently did this without any consultation with our experts on the area, or if there was, he ignored their advice.
2. This will further to stabilize that region.
3. Thousands will be killed.
4. The Russians will step in, give aid, and gain control over the factions in that region, a great threat to Turkey.

If there is any lesson from our statecraft and military exploits in the Middle East over the last 75 years, it is that the experts -- at least those who influence US policy and practice -- are clueless.  And the President's "bumbling" elsewhere has produced some positive movement in places where the experts have repeatedly failed. 

That said, there is no way our withdrawal was going to be anything but bad for the Turkish/Syrian Kurds.  The Turkey may be our NATO ally, but they are not our friends. Frankly as allies go, they've never been very good except when it was in the Turkish interest, and that sense of expediency has only gotten stronger under the Islamicist Erdogan who, as a Turk, is only too glad to try to destroy the Kurds. 

The question remains, however: what is the purpose of our military presence in the lands of the old Ottoman Empire?

Pax, Steven+

[The Yak]

Now we know that the Durham investigation is a criminal investigation, but we don't know when it became one.  If Urkaine's involvement in the 2016 election along with the Bidens' activities in the same are parts of a criminal investigation, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the president requesting that the treaty with Ukraine regarding investigating possible criminal activity be honored.  There is nothing nefarious about introducing one's AG as the "central authority" doing the investigation to another head of state.

For those interested, here is the text of the treaty.

[Charles Austin]

How interesting, comedic and tragic it is to see Republicans try to storm a closed investigation meeting - when they and their Republican colleagues are already inside - and howl about a process that they - yes, they, the Republicans - put in place.
How tragic and sad it is to see the President refer to "this phony emoluments clause" and thereby dismiss the actual, real, words of our Constitution. And he is still (and probably will continue to be) in violation of that principle.
How sad and tragic it is to see the Administration try to distract from the impeachment process, parry with another investigation (thought they liked the Mueller report!) and hear the President attempt to take credit for fixing things that were his fault to begin with or attempt to take credit for things he never touched.
In a 24-hour period, He compares Himself to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and victims of lynch mobs. Shameful and clueless.
And how sad it is to see our allies in the world look at us and wonder.
A few weeks ago I heard a freshman Republican member of congress (I didn't get name or place, was only passing by the television) say: "We should go ahead with impeaching the president, and if that means I am a one-term congressman, that's ok." I nominate that man for whatever prize honors truth and courage and self-sacrifice.
The rest of the Republican members of Congress still have some time to get some guts, recover a soul and do a good thing. But I fear most won't.

[D. Engebretson]

The top three contenders for the Democratic nomination (according to the polls) remain Biden, Sanders and Warren.  Although Biden is often considered the front runner, Warren was considered at #1 according to Business Insider, with Sanders at #2 and Biden at #3.

Could any of the three beat Trump?  Regardless of the impeachment proceedings the real determinant for 2020 and beyond is the election.

If the election were entirely based on the popular vote with the Electoral College abandoned a Democratic might have a strong chance, especially by leading in the major metro areas on each coast as Clinton did in 2016.  But the real question is do they have real appeal in the heartland? How broad is their support?

I think that Sanders is too far left to hold this area.  He is a self-avowed Democratic Socialist which will not fly well in the more conservative heartland. 

Biden and Warren have a better chance of appealing to a broader base.  But how strong is Trump's?  Some seem to think it is as strong as it was in 2016.  And the impeachment will only fire up the core of that base.

So how do the Democrats win by broadening their appeal?