gehringer_2 Posted June 23 Posted June 23 (edited) 17 minutes ago, romad1 said: The distance between US prestige in 1975 (fall of Saigon) and 1989 (fall of Berlin Wall) is a useful measure. It took 10 years for the US to restore its diplomatic and defense prestige from Vietnam, Cambodia, and the sting of the Iran Hostage crisis and failure of Operation Eagle Claw (the rescue effort). By 1989 we were luckily on the edge of a wave of technology advancement and just enough moral authority (these things are relative) to oversee the end of the Warsaw Pact. Now, we had good equipment in 1975. Our Air Force and Navy were very good. Our ground forces were hollowed out by the transition from the draft and the need to rebuild an all-volunteer force. The system was just coming to grips with the need to create a multi-racial opportunity blind system to create the conditions for success. In many cases, it was a success. Now, how do we proceed from here? Likely, in fits and starts. Unless there is a crescendo that tells everyone that there needs to be a radical change. There is a more fundamental problem today however - us. Until the public decides it's going to have values again, the political process won't be reformed. There are those who are saying this needs to be the Dems' mantra - go after corruption of the people and the system, as was done in Hungary. The question is whether the Dems, being the putative opposition, can free themselves of their own money corruption and whether the election system's (and media'a) prostitution to money is so deep now it cannot be overcome even if the intent forms to do it. Edited June 23 by gehringer_2 2 Quote
romad1 Posted June 23 Posted June 23 3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: There is a more fundamental problem today however - us. Until the public decides it's going to have values again, the political process won't be reformed. There are those who are saying this needs to be the Dems' mantra - go after corruption of the people and the system, as was done in Hungary. The question is whether the Dems, being the putative opposition, can free themselves of their own money corruption and whether the election system's (and media'a) prostitution to money is so deep now it cannot be overcome even if the intent forms to do it. Not to mention that money sure helps you win office. Quote
romad1 Posted June 23 Posted June 23 3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: There is a more fundamental problem today however - us. Until the public decides it's going to have values again, the political process won't be reformed. There are those who are saying this needs to be the Dems' mantra - go after corruption of the people and the system, as was done in Hungary. The question is whether the Dems, being the putative opposition, can free themselves of their own money corruption and whether the election system's (and media'a) prostitution to money is so deep now it cannot be overcome even if the intent forms to do it. To be clear about all of this. The system had massive inefficiencies in the 1980s. We had homeless people. We had drug war. We had dirty wars in Latin America. 1 Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 23 Posted June 23 (edited) 8 minutes ago, romad1 said: To be clear about all of this. The system had massive inefficiencies in the 1980s. We had homeless people. We had drug war. We had dirty wars in Latin America. and you have the inevitable paradox that the idealistic tend to be incompetent - e.g. Jimmy Carter. With the '76 election the country had a chance to push back forces of reaction, the Nixon 'Southern Strategy' and the snake oil Reagan salesmen of the Laffer curve for at least a while, maybe another generation, but Carter simply wasn't good enough at his job. By Bill Clinton the Dems had thrown in the towel on principles and gone 'Republican Lite' and here we are. Edited June 23 by gehringer_2 Quote
Mr.TaterSalad Posted June 23 Posted June 23 It's ironic that people who supported a President in the throws of Alzheimer's disease would questions someone's competency for the job. Reagan wasn't a very smart man to begin with and had little interest in cracking the books and truly understanding public policy. Being a good speaker doesn't necessarily make one smart. It makes you a better conman, as Reagan was, but not smart. Reagan had little intellectual curiosity of the world around him or data that can drive effective public policy. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 23 Posted June 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: It's ironic that people who supported a President in the throws of Alzheimer's disease would questions someone's competency for the job. Reagan wasn't a very smart man to begin with and had little interest in cracking the books and truly understanding public policy. Being a good speaker doesn't necessarily make one smart. It makes you a better conman, as Reagan was, but not smart. Reagan had little intellectual curiosity of the world around him or data that can drive effective public policy. I'd guess the shooting probably set him back more than has ever been acknowledged, but it also cast the die for making him a bit of a folk hero. But you do have to give Reagan credit for one thing, other than maybe Meese and James Watt, he assembled probably the most competent cabinet in my lifetime. Regan, Baker, Simon, Schultz, and count Volker. Reagan at least knew enough to leave the nuts and bolts to them. Even if you disagreed on policy, there was no question they were good at their jobs. In a backhanded way you even have to give Wienburger and Casey, who were in the middle of Iran Contra, credit for being able to get more stuff done than they should have for their own good. Casey. as devious as they came, was the perfect head for Spooks. Edited June 23 by gehringer_2 Quote
romad1 Posted June 23 Posted June 23 5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: I'd guess the shooting probably set him back more than has ever been acknowledged, but it also cast the die for making him a bit of a folk hero. But you do have to give Reagan credit for one thing, other than maybe Meese and James Watt, he assembled probably the most competent cabinet in my lifetime. Regan, Baker, Simon, Schultz, and count Volker. Reagan at least knew enough to leave the nuts and bolts to them. Even if you disagreed on policy, there was no question they were good at their jobs. In a backhanded way you even have to give Wienburger and Casey, who were in the middle of Iran Contra, credit for being able to get more stuff done than they should have for their own good. Casey. as devious as they came, was the perfect head for Spooks. There was a sincere interest in ending the Cold War arms race after "The Day After" which is probably not how you want policy formulation to occur. He wasn't great about HIV/AIDS until his friend Rock Hudson died. Again. Still, you are dead right about the cabinet. James Watt was a clown for sure. He famously kept Phylis Schafly out. Quote
chasfh Posted June 23 Posted June 23 2 hours ago, romad1 said: The distance between US prestige in 1975 (fall of Saigon) and 1989 (fall of Berlin Wall) is a useful measure. It took 10 years for the US to restore its diplomatic and defense prestige from Vietnam, Cambodia, and the sting of the Iran Hostage crisis and failure of Operation Eagle Claw (the rescue effort). By 1989 we were luckily on the edge of a wave of technology advancement and just enough moral authority (these things are relative) to oversee the end of the Warsaw Pact. Now, we had good equipment in 1975. Our Air Force and Navy were very good. Our ground forces were hollowed out by the transition from the draft and the need to rebuild an all-volunteer force. The system was just coming to grips with the need to create a multi-racial opportunity blind system to create the conditions for success. In many cases, it was a success. Now, how do we proceed from here? Likely, in fits and starts. Unless there is a crescendo that tells everyone that there needs to be a radical change. And that radical change needs to be codified in law. America has been able to gain the trust of the world under a system that has relied on custom instead. Now that custom is broken and no one can trust us to follow custom anymore. Codifying change in law is the first thing that needs to happen. Constitutional overhaul might also have to be in the cards. As far as I can tell, the alternative is, nobody in the first world trusts us ever again, and we either attempt to become a lone wolf country intent on throwing our weight around to try to impose our will on everyone else, which is a losing proposition, or we throw our alliances with other similarly distrusted nations in the world, with whatever consequences that entails. To me, the choice looks easy. But then, I'm not a guy in charge. Quote
Mr.TaterSalad Posted June 23 Posted June 23 I won't post this in the World Cup thread because I don't want to get suspended again. I'm not normally an avid football/soccer fan, but I was enjoying watching the World Cup until just now. Looks like I'll be done watching the remainder of the World Cup. **** Donald Trump and **** FIFA for involving him in this. Imagine allowing George Wallace to present the World Cup trophy or Richard Nixon after Watergate to do it. Trump's so corrupt he makes Sepp Blatter look like a saint. Quote
oblong Posted June 23 Posted June 23 Yeah but if corruption is your metric then you shouldn’t watch FIFA to begin with. Quote
guy incognito Posted June 23 Posted June 23 5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: There is a more fundamental problem today however - us. Until the public decides it's going to have values again, the political process won't be reformed. Carter once spoke of “a government as good as its people”. No one noticed he was holding a monkey’s paw at the time. 1 Quote
oblong Posted June 23 Posted June 23 Carters failures had as much to do with other democrats as with him. He was still an outsider. He bashed Washington as an institution and his own folks took issue with that. He could also be sanctimonious and that led to people not feeling any loyalty to him. Clinton always blamed him for his failure at reelection to governor after his first term. Carter dumped Cuban refugees in Arkansas rather than Pennsylvania as planned because of the upcoming election in ‘80. He carried that grudge into his presidency. 1 Quote
chasfh Posted June 24 Posted June 24 18 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: I won't post this in the World Cup thread because I don't want to get suspended again. I'm not normally an avid football/soccer fan, but I was enjoying watching the World Cup until just now. Looks like I'll be done watching the remainder of the World Cup. **** Donald Trump and **** FIFA for involving him in this. Imagine allowing George Wallace to present the World Cup trophy or Richard Nixon after Watergate to do it. Trump's so corrupt he makes Sepp Blatter look like a saint. Why wouldn't FIFA want the Peace President to present their trophy? 😏 I think it's at least 50-50 that Trump bails once he sees which country actually wins. If it's not a Nordic country or South Africa, I think there would be a good chance he's out. And if he does end up awarding it to the team, it might well be in the dressing room out of public view, or perhaps even at the White House in a ceremony a few weeks afterwards. Quote
chasfh Posted June 24 Posted June 24 16 hours ago, guy incognito said: Nothing but the hits, baby! Didn't someone once equate this to what he was used to seeing on Epstein's island? Quote
chasfh Posted June 24 Posted June 24 15 hours ago, oblong said: Carters failures had as much to do with other democrats as with him. He was still an outsider. He bashed Washington as an institution and his own folks took issue with that. He could also be sanctimonious and that led to people not feeling any loyalty to him. Clinton always blamed him for his failure at reelection to governor after his first term. Carter dumped Cuban refugees in Arkansas rather than Pennsylvania as planned because of the upcoming election in ‘80. He carried that grudge into his presidency. 1 Quote
chasfh Posted June 24 Posted June 24 3 hours ago, romad1 said: Filipkowski is making a funny here, but the premise is all wrong. Trump and the MAGA elite never release evidence because they don't believe they have to. They demand that you take only their word for whatever they allege, because the more powerful you are, the more you ain't gotta prove ****. Quote
romad1 Posted June 24 Posted June 24 Hearing that Grampy diaper pants won't sign a Housing bill because he demands the SAVE ACT. Good luck selling crazy 1 Quote
Sports_Freak Posted June 24 Posted June 24 13 minutes ago, chasfh said: Filipkowski is making a funny here, but the premise is all wrong. Trump and the MAGA elite never release evidence because they don't believe they have to. They demand that you take only their word for whatever they allege, because the more powerful you are, the more you ain't gotta prove ****. Well, to be fair, if there was evidence on video, releasing it to the public could endanger court proceedings. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.