By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Moren said:
sundin13 said:

What in your opinion, should the administration have done?

Could have processed the eligible people for visas faster, for a start. Could have given elegible Afghans far more of a heads up and gotten them out of the country months ago.

He just didn't care because he didn't think they are worthy of his attention.

Alright, I don't disagree that they should have done more to process SIVs before the deadline, but we have to remember that they entered with a sizeable backlog and they were limited by the requirements of the process. They could have and should have done more, but I think boiling this down to a lack of empathy is jumping to a conclusion not fully supported by the data. Under every circumstance there would have been people left behind, but in my opinion, the US did fairly admirably after the fall of Afghanistan getting over 100,000 people out in a short period of time. 

Jaicee said:

Remember when I predicted not long ago that the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan would lead to a spike in military depression and suicides? What would I know about such things as someone who grew up in a military family myself? As the daughter of a broken Vietnam War veteran who degenerated into alcoholism and abuse and ultimately died in an alcohol-induced car wreck? Well lo and behold that calls to veterans' suicide prevention hotlines are way up since the fall of Kabul. Why, you ask? This sums it up well:

Spoiler!
Many veterans have been questioning if their service was all for nothing and whether their friends lost their lives in combat in vain. Many others are grappling with numbness—anger, with the idea that the U.S. military has abandoned the very Afghans they were deployed to protect for nearly two decades.

Spoiler!

“I’m talking to other soldiers and morale is at an extreme all time low. We let the Afghans down,” said Dave Kennedy, a Marine who served two tours in Iraq. “We understand that it’s out of our control. It’s a policy decision. [These are] things that are well above our pay grade. But at the end of the day, we were there to protect these people, and we’re no longer there to protect them from the horrors and atrocities that we’re going to see from the Taliban.”

He continued that he was not someone who typically cries—“it’s not a thing I’m proud of or whatever, it’s just kind of who I always have been, I’m not a crier”—but Kennedy said he had “shed more tears over the last week than I have my entire life.”

My point is that it's not just war itself that kills our service members; it can also be the terms of peace. Soldiers and war veterans aren't militarists like generals can be. You will find it to be the case time and again though that our veterans expect the sacrifices expected of them to have been made for some sort of reason; that they made some kind of tangible difference in the world. Most of our soldiers and veterans I guarantee you wanted this war to end too. But not on these terms. Not in the form of very publicly losing all the gains that were made at substantial human cost. To be frank, it makes them feel worthless. This is the result.

When you've made the kinds of sacrifices involved in fighting a war -- when you've lost friends and maybe limbs, marriages, and certainly your mental health -- the terms of peace matter to you. Peace at any price isn't the endgame you want to see realized, but peace with honor. In this sense, you do become attached to the cause on some level. Whether you truly believed in the cause or not, you want all that sacrifice to have been for some kind of reason. You want it to have at least meant something. And you don't want people to think less of you because of your service when you come home. The kind of very public humiliation on the world stage that our service members are enduring right now isn't just unseemly, it's life-threatening.

Suicide is by far the leading cause of death connected to military service and rates are consistently higher for veterans than for other Americans. That's not too surprising when you're routinely exposed to traumatizing situations and taught to suppress your emotions rather than talk about them in response.

I'm sorry for getting overly emotional about the terms of peace in connection to a war I think all of us wanted to see come to an end, it's just a topic that hits really close to home. There's nothing "delicious" about this situation to me.

At some point the cycle needs to be broken. I find it utterly unconscionable to continue sending people to fight in this war that we've known to be unwinnable for a decade at least. We've been fighting this war in order to not have to deal with these realities which are laid bare when the war is over, chief among these realities is that the lives that we have sacrificed in Afghanistan were largely in vain. 

I very much feel for those who suffered in Afghanistan and I hope they are able to find the help they need in this difficult time to pull through, but I see that as a reason to end this war as soon as possible, not a reason to prolong it. These realities have been known to be true for years while our politicians lied to us about the success of the war effort. 



Around the Network
Jaicee said:

You remember that Texas law that my wonderful Governor Greg Asshole Abbott signed back in May banning all abortions statewide after just six weeks (i.e. before most women even know they're pregnant!) and putting $10,000 bounties on the heads of anyone -- and I mean ANYONE -- who in any way "aids or abets" the provision of an abortion, from doctors doing the procedure to nurses working with them to say a family member providing a ride and anyone in-between? That one? The abortion bounty hunters law? I know what you were predicting: "Just like all the other six-week abortion bans, the courts will intervene and put a stay on this law until it's overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court inevitably, thus preventing it from ever going into effect." Right? Wellllll....WRONG!! The courts have decided not to intervene and the law has just gone into effect today!

This is the most extreme abortion restriction in the country. While nearly all abortions occur within the first trimester of a pregnancy, at least 85% of them occur after the first six weeks of pregnancy, so what this means in the practical is that...basically abortion is banned in Texas as of now. I mean almost all of it is anyway. This is a total ban too. You're not even exempted if you can prove that your pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Many if not most providers are going to just stop providing abortions altogether now just to shield themselves from legal liability. For example, most physicians working at the state's four Whole Women's Health clinics have said they will discontinue the provision of abortions period henceforth because of this new law.

More importantly yet, the Supreme Court's decision not to take up this case -- or at least not before it could go into effect anyway -- signals a fundamental change in the court's orientation toward abortion bans. It signals that there are now at least five Supreme Court justices (out of the nine; a majority, in other words) who are against Roe V. Wade today; inevitably a reflection on the fact that former President Trump was allowed to seat THREE new Supreme Court justices in the span of just four years despite his party having actively blocked consideration of one Merrick Garland throughout the entire final year of Obama's second term. The Court is set to take up an abortion case from Mississippi in their next session. This is an early indication as to how that will likely go. This really could mark the beginning of the end of Roe V. Wade in the U.S. And that's saying something because it's not exactly like anti-abortion fanatics have been on the defensive for the last decade, or for the last 45 years for that matter. Most abortion providers have been forced to close their doors over the last decade alone and fake abortion clinics in this country now far outnumber real ones as things are. It's only a matter of time before the final blow is struck and I really believe that time is now upon us.

In view of all this, this seems like a nice time for some presidential intervention in some form. Something needs to be done on this front immediately! As in right now, today.

If the Supreme Court isn’t doing it’s job in defending the individual rights and freedoms from the tyranny of the masses, then they should be fired. I’m no expert in US government, but I assume there’s some process for this.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Looking back at 20 years of war in Afghanistan, it becomes more and more clear, that an "ordered withdrawal" was impossible. Trump said he wanted out multiple times but every time there was this one terror bombing or this other thing that stopped the withdrawal. Biden just ordered to move out like a thief in the night leaving his military belongings behind so that no one could anticipate that sudden move. Move quickly when the enemy least expects said Sun Tzu. Of course like a clockwork there was this glowing ISIS-Kpop group, that no one has heard off before, doing a big bombing but they were two days too late. The Taliban are less extreme than the Saudis and they liberated their country after 40 years of occupation. No more heroin fields or bacha bazi boys sponsored by the gay empire.

Now the MSM is turning on Biden and he is losing popularity fast bc libz never learned to think for themselves. Punished Biden.



Jumpin said:

If the Supreme Court isn’t doing it’s job in defending the individual rights and freedoms from the tyranny of the masses, then they should be fired. I’m no expert in US government, but I assume there’s some process for this.

Supreme Court Justice impeachment is basically the same process as Presidential impeachments. That is to say: it will never happen.

Really the only option that is available is an expansion of the court.



sundin13 said:
Jumpin said:

If the Supreme Court isn’t doing it’s job in defending the individual rights and freedoms from the tyranny of the masses, then they should be fired. I’m no expert in US government, but I assume there’s some process for this.

Supreme Court Justice impeachment is basically the same process as Presidential impeachments. That is to say: it will never happen.

Really the only option that is available is an expansion of the court.

I see, kind of sounds like a shitty situation. Expanding the courts seems it would set a bad precedent. The good precedent would be to get them booted for obvious political bias/corruption.

This is a tyranny of the masses winning against justice situation.

Texas likes the idea of separatism, right? Maybe the more sane parts of the State can push a referendum to split away from Texas, Liberal Texas can be one half, the other can be Sharia/Puritanical Law Texas. It would be interesting to see which one would be more successful.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

Given that one of my least favorite people here just gave me a thumbs up - I will add that my anger and disappointment in Biden will in no way shape or form translate to a vote for a Republican at the federal level.



sundin13 said:
Jumpin said:

If the Supreme Court isn’t doing it’s job in defending the individual rights and freedoms from the tyranny of the masses, then they should be fired. I’m no expert in US government, but I assume there’s some process for this.

Supreme Court Justice impeachment is basically the same process as Presidential impeachments. That is to say: it will never happen.

Really the only option that is available is an expansion of the court.

My solution would be to democratize the U.S. Supreme Court, as in to have it so that each Supreme Court justice is democratically elected on a regular basis like members of Congress. Because I guarantee you this law isn't popular even here in Texas, let alone nationwide. This isn't the "tyranny of the masses", it's just plain tyranny.

It's ridiculous that there's a whole branch of our government that's not accountable to anyone anyway. Judges shouldn't be just appointed to lifetime terms, they should have to earn the right to hold their posts. It shouldn't be a lifetime entitlement.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 05 September 2021

So a general thought tonight: are we back in the 1970s again politically?

Trump was often compared to Richard Nixon and Biden is often compared to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. I find these comparisons interesting. We have seen a lot of symptoms of '70s era politicking in recent years. Election-related corruption scandals, corresponding impeachment proceedings, unusually high inflation, shortages (including gas shortages at points this year), rising crime rates, rampant drug addiction, military budget cuts, dwindling national pride, even a humiliating fall-of-Saigon type moment, and our music is just as lame; will the comparisons never end? Even the overarching political narrative of recent years seems similar to that of the '70s: Corrupt strongman who blames the media for his crimes is ousted, then we elect an empathetic leader to purify the country (or "restore the soul of the nation", if you will) and he basically just passively lets everything fall apart on the theory that, after his predecessor's corruption, the public is now against strong leadership in principle. It's like with Trump we officially ditched the neoliberal regime brought in properly by Reagan and reverted back to what we were doing immediately before that back in the '70s, more or less, and it's not working out a lot better than it did back then. Seriously, this is, by many metrics (not all of them, but many), the worst shape I've ever seen America in before in my lifetime.

The Democrats spend four years denouncing Moscow for interfering in our election processes time and again, then a Democratic president is elected and Putin gets his pipeline to Germany because...because...

In 1980, there was massive billboard opposite the entrance to the home post of the 82nd Airborne Division that read "IRAN, LET OUR PEOPLE GO." That is what we had become by the time the 1970s concluded: a nation reduced to begging Tehran’s theocratic fanatics to release U.S. diplomats and soldiers. One today can mentally replace them with the Afghan Taliban and get a similar picture of the last several weeks. Today's space race is between companies, not nations, and it's to see who can be the first to send millionaires vacationing in low-Earth orbit. Yeah, we're still America alright. Let's just keep telling ourselves that.

President Biden's current average job approval rating stands at 45.2% compared to 49.3% who disapprove, and he's the most popular public official in the country (at least in national-level polling anyway)...which I think sums up how Americans currently feel about their politicians in general. The most popular public official in the country polls underwater. That sounds like a lot of the '70s too. It's also almost identical to Carter's 45.5% polling average over the course of his presidency.

If we're going back to the '70s, can we at least have the free speech? And the not-so-corporate film-making?

I miss us just having some semblance of dignity as a country. I guess that's all I'm trying to say this evening.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 06 September 2021

Jaicee said:
sundin13 said:

Supreme Court Justice impeachment is basically the same process as Presidential impeachments. That is to say: it will never happen.

Really the only option that is available is an expansion of the court.

My solution would be to democratize the U.S. Supreme Court, as in to have it so that each Supreme Court justice is democratically elected on a regular basis like members of Congress. Because I guarantee you this law isn't popular even here in Texas, let alone nationwide. This isn't the "tyranny of the masses", it's just plain tyranny.

It's ridiculous that there's a whole branch of our government that's not accountable to anyone anyway. Judges shouldn't be just appointed to lifetime terms, they should have to earn the right to hold their posts. It shouldn't be a lifetime entitlement.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would be even more impossible than impeachment unfortunately



sundin13 said:

That would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would be even more impossible than impeachment unfortunately

I'm less certain. I think such a constitutional amendment, if proposed, would quickly garner the kind of immense public support that would render it hard to stop. I think the public is very tired of the Supreme Court being a function of the presidency.

Conversely, I think the public is much less open to the kind of overt court-packing that defines an agenda to arbitrarily increase the number of Supreme Court justices.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 06 September 2021