Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    5810
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ghost of LL

  1. Excellent. Because if there's anything the American people demonstrated last week, it's that they side with extremists who would overthrow American democracy. That's completely the lesson I hope the GQP takes into the House majority. Meanwhile, as some loyalty shifts over to DeSantis, it'll be interesting to see if the DOJ gets some cooperation from people who were formerly loyal to Trump as it continues its investigation of January 6. It would probably behoove DeSantis to have Trump under indictment or even in prison for seditious conspiracy.
  2. No, because that presupposes that there was a mistake in ending World War I. Germany wasn't a threat to violate its obligations under the armistice and the subsequent Versailles treaty when those were done. And for the first 15 years, Germany performed its obligations. It wasn't until a semi-revolutionary regime change that brought about Nazi rearmament and the Dochstosslegende that the balance of power and German willingness to uphold its commitments changed. And that could not really have been foreseen in 1918. The requirement for an absolutist end to the war in 1944-45 came from Allied leaders learning their lessons from 1938 (Munich for the British) and 1939 (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for the Soviets) that the Nazi regime couldn't be trusted to adhere to its war-avoidance commitments. A very good lawyer. My entire job consists of (1) understanding dense and complicated subject matter and (2) then succinctly explaining it to a non-technical audience.
  3. There's an interesting book out entitled How Wars End by Dan Reiter. It posits that the traditional traditional view of war termination--that wars end when the uncertainty as to the balance of power is resolved through the verdict of the battlefield--is wrong. It argues that the biggest determiner of when a war will end is whether the commitments made by both parties to end the war can be trusted. If a party cannot trust the commitment made by its opponent not to reinitiate hostilities, then the war will not end. An illustration of this is the difference between World War I and World War II. The Entente could trust that Germany would not reinitiate hostilities in November 1918 because Germany was in a revolutionary state. Its monarchy and government had collapsed and its army was in open mutiny. So there was no chance it could restart the war, even if it wanted to. In contrast, Germany in 1944-45 had broken ever peace agreement it had ever made, from Versailles to Munich. There was no reason to believe that it would adhere to any commitments it might make in any armistice with the Allies. So the only acceptable outcome was an absolute victory resulting in state destruction. We're facing a similar problem with Russia. Ukraine can't have any confidence that Russia would adhere to the terms of any war-ending agreement. So it becomes real hard to see how they can reach a diplomatic solution. Sounds like we're coming up with a way to say that this wasn't an attack. The missile was "shot down," and instead of falling out of the sky, it defied gravity and actually flew further than it would have on its planned trajectory. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.
  4. I agree with this. I think some of the smart ones have recognized that Americans really hate election-denialism. And I have to wonder whether that didn't play a role in Stacey Abrams' loss. At the extreme risk of both-siding this shit, I suspect her complaints about the 2018 gubernatorial election turned off a lot of Independents. I'm not saying her complaints weren't justified or that her objections were in any way equivalent to Trump's in 2020. I'm just saying that I could see a lot of people who don't pay a lot of attention could equate the two.
  5. Because Turkey is not our friend. That's not to say that they can't be useful. But I think we've distinctly seen the limitations of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy in the Middle East. I'm fine with Turkey exercising its soft power in Central Asia, which is underpinned by their ethnic and linguistic ties. That can be an important tie toward bring the Central Asian countries into the Western fold (and extracting them from Russia's orbit). But damned if I want to see Turkey use any hard power in the area.
  6. I don't know that they're "repurposed." They're still holding shit. It sounds a lot more like a reconnaissance-in-force to me. But that's directly across the Antonovskyy Bridge from Kherson. This may be an indication that they think they can do a quick repair to that bridge and get heavy equipment across, if the Russian defenses in that area aren't fully built-out.
  7. That's significantly older. I'm 47, and I only know about that as a piece of history. I think there are a lot of people in their 40s that would give you a blank stare for that title.
  8. Of the current officeholders, I'd say Colin Allred or Lina Hidalgo. Maybe Clay Jenkins. Fuck--I'd say let Philip Kingston do it just for the lulz. He'd lose, but he'd throw a lot of bombs and it'd honestly be really, really funny. But honestly, I think you've got to go outside the bucket of current officeholders. I know it's intensely stupid, but the best bet may be to go with someone like McConaughey or Cubes.
  9. It's not just incumbency. Tester and Brown were first elected in 2006; Manchin in 2010. All three have been elected three times. So voters are comfortable voting for them. They know what they're getting, and apparently they've liked what they've been getting. And beyond that, there is something of a small-state multiplier in the incumbency advantage. Fivethirtyeight and others have done some interesting research on this, but it is pretty clear that incumbents in small states are voted out at a much lower rate than in large states. Presumably, it has something to do with the higher percentage of people in a small state having had personal contact and/or getting constituent services from the incumbent than you see in a larger state. So that works to the significant advantage of Manchin and Tester. Oh, and I forgot to note that Jacky Rosen (NV) is up for reelection. As I've said before, Nevada is Republican Florida. They always think the polls look great, but then election day comes and the Democrats always win. I don't expect this to be different. But I'm sure the Republicans will keep fucking that chicken.
  10. There's an age that people younger than that age would give you a blank stare if you said "Debbie Does Dallas." I wonder what that age is. I suspect it's 28. If you were born after 1994, I bet those words have no meaning to you.
  11. I couldn't agree with this more. He's just terrible.
  12. Motion fails for lack of a second.
  13. I'm sorry--I'm just looking at this board for the first time since Saturday. Is the current Surly groupthink that the players are blameless? Because Sark is somehow to blame for Worthy, Sanders, and Whittington all dropping passes as though they were covered in KY? And Quinn is not responsible for not being able to complete a pass until the second quarter because he should have been on the bench in favor of . . . Hudson Card, who also can't complete a pass more than ten yards downfield? There were plenty of playcalls I didn't like. But Jesus--the players on the offensive side deserve a lot of heat.
  14. It's all done but the crying in Georgia, so let's get this started. It appears to be a rough map for the Democrats with Tester (MT), Brown (OH), and Manchin (WV) all running for reelection in very red states. But here's the thing: those are really good candidates with a history of success in those states. All three of them won pretty comfortably in 2018. And while that was a wave election, I'm also a bit skeptical about how much of a blue wave there possibly could have been in West fucking Virginia. I think those guys remain the favorites to be reelected until I see otherwise. As always, the real interesting thing is when there's a retirement. Mike Braun (IN) is the only incumbent to be known to be retiring. But even with that retirement, I don't see that as a realistic pick-up opportunity. Diane Feinstein (CA) may be retiring. If she's not, she's going to have an interesting election. With California's weird jungle-primary system, you could see two Democrats in the general election or, conceivably, two Republicans (particularly if Biden runs for reelection and is largely unopposed, thereby reducing Democratic turnout on primary day). Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) is going to get primaried out. I think there's just no real chance she survives a primary challenge by Gallego. So that's going to be really interesting. The Arizona Republican bench is a little bit thin these days, and I have confidence that they'll nominate a loon. So I have to think Gallego is a favorite as of now. Apart from that, you might see Manchin retire. I could also see Bernie Sanders (VT) retire, but I don't see that seat going to the Republicans. And then there's Ted Cruz (TX). In this cycle, that may be the Democrats' best chance for a pickup.
  15. The fact that they are getting tanks from Belarus indicates that they might be.
  16. But having those terrible candidates is the GQP's identity. That's what its base wants. That's what they voted for in the primaries. It's like saying "that fat dude would probably be not so fat if he ate McDonald's less than five times a week." I mean, ok. But he knows that, and he doesn't care. He wants his fucking Royale with Cheese, goddamn it, and he doesn't really give a shit about the consequences.
  17. I think it's under-appreciated just how many Trump voters never voted before in their lives. It's a huge number, and was enough to swing Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in 2016. It's not hard to see why--he played right to their grievances. All the things they thought about politics and politicians and the "system" he said out loud for them. And he was an asshole while doing it who infuriated everyone they wanted to infuriate. For them, it was only ever about "owning the libs." And if destroying the country is what it took, that's fine; the country wasn't working great for them anyway (at least in their though process). So if there's a guy who's not just all about owning the libs, they're going to sink back into the woodwork and not be heard from. For them, politics has become entertainment. Trump is the hero. The "libs" are the villain. DeSantis doesn't very well play the hero, and he doesn't go out and slay the villain in the way Trump does. And without that screenplay, they're just not interested in the show. Undoubtedly, some will. I think you saw that in Texas. A whole bunch of people in Tarrant and Collin counties went back to the GQP with Trump not on the ballot. But for every suburbanite that comes back, I think you lose two people in the rural and exurban areas who were only ever excited about Trump. Trump's right about one thing: he got more votes than Romney. Trump energized a lot of people. And without those votes, the GQP is sunk.
  18. At some point, there's going to be a state visit to Washington, followed by a tickertape parade in New York up the Canyon of Heroes. And that's going to be an amazing event. I don't think the peninsula itself is of much use. It's more important as a proof-of-concept. Somehow, the Ukrainians were able to pull off an amphibious landing. And that indicates that they have the tools available to do that in the Crimea. At the very least, it forces the Russians to consider the possibility and divert troops and supplies to building up coastal defenses.
  19. It’s really interesting to me, because the Democrats clearly saw something in their late polling that reflected this. Biden Gabe two very late prime-time speeches on democracy to the exclusion of really every other issue. I thought that was weird. But now we see that it had to be in response to what they were seeing in their polling.
  20. Perfect case-in-point. We haven't seen shit from Gym for the past two years. But get ready--that stupid fucker is a committee chairman if the Republicans take the House. He won't be able to accomplish anything, mind you. But he'll remind everyone of everything they hate about the GQP.
  21. The rightward drift of the GOP really was a case of a boiling frog. It was so gradual that a lot of us who were Republicans didn't notice. In fact, with Bush's talk of "compassionate conservatism" and his father's reconciliation to the New Deal programs, it seemed to some of us like the Party was going the other way. But then Trump came along and turned the dial on the stovetop to "High," and a lot of us frogs jumped out of the pot. The House majority really is a poisoned chalice. One may accuse me of pronouncing those grapes to be sour, but they really are fucking sour. In a House in which every Member is his/her own majority, you're right that it highlights the most extreme voices. And as a Democrat, who do I want highlighted? Primilia Jayapal? Or Marjorie Taylor Greene? It's not like either side is going to get anything done anyway. But at least the Republicans will look extreme and incompetent while they're in the majority.
  22. Well, that’s just Clausewitz. A generation before Grant, Clausewitz postulated that the goal of military maneuver was to engage and destroy the enemy army, rather than capturing and holding territory. And failure to do that permitted the conflict to continue indefinitely (see, e.g., the Hundred Years War).
×
×
  • Create New...