Biden catching hell for a hasty withdrawal yet Trump signed order 8 days after election.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

And certainly had nothing to do with the fact that Republicans in the Senate were either in the tank for Trump or completely covering their political tails, right?

Considering that Romney was the first senator to vote for impeachment on a President in his own party in the first trial, and then seven senators did so in his second trial, I'm not sure you want to make this argument. Everyone knew impeachment was a long shot entirely because of partisanship.

Don't forget that in the first impeachment proceedings, the senate voted (by only two votes) to not even listen to additional evidence, which would have included Bolton's testimony.

You guys are amazing.  You don’t believe in the Constitution unless it goes your way.  No matter how you feel, by the rule of law, Trump was found not guilty.  It’s why the Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster.  Yeah, majority rules, that’s the ticket.  What could go wrong.

[Leftfield 2,592]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You guys are amazing.  You don’t believe in the Constitution unless it goes your way.  No matter how you feel, by the rule of law, Trump was found not guilty.  It’s why the Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster.  Yeah, majority rules, that’s the ticket.  What could go wrong.

I absolutely believe in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean our government doesn't have failings. The two-party system is one of them. Clinton was guilty as hell, and so was Trump. Partisanship kept them from being convicted.

As for voting for removal from office, Trump absolutely deserved that.. Not sure I would have voted for Clinton to be removed just because he lied about getting a blow job.

[AU9377 4,919]

11 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Stranding thousands of Americans and allied indigenous personnel with accompanying biometric data while relocating massive quantities of unvetted military aged men is what you call safeguarding the country?

Something tells me that you are part of the 70% of Republicans that think Biden stole the election and that there is evidence that supports this position.  There is no evidence supporting the position.  Therefore, you belief is based on nothing more than speculation.  You seem to be taking the same approach to Afghanistan.  Nobody I know on the right has ever given a damn about indigenous personnel.  That is, until it became a talking point. 

[AU9377 4,919]

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s obvious that Milley and Austin fit that bill.  Let others take their place and if they have to make decisions under stress, even you can tell if they are worth their salt.  Will Biden make the hard call?  Will Milley fall on his sword?  How about Austin?

Maybe Biden will give them all the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  They certainly deserve it more than Rush Limbaugh.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I absolutely believe in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean our government doesn't have failings. The two-party system is one of them. Clinton was guilty as hell, and so was Trump. Partisanship kept them from being convicted.

As for voting for removal from office, Trump absolutely deserved that.. Not sure I would have voted for Clinton to be removed just because he lied about getting a blow job.

Yes we have failings and the two-party system is a problem, more now then ever.  Trump did not deserve to be removed from office if the prosecutor could not prove he should be removed.  It was partisan, I agree, but if a President was to be removed from office it must be bipartisan.  That is the way the system is set up.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Maybe Biden will give them all the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  They certainly deserve it more than Rush Limbaugh.

That would be apropos for this administration. 

[Leftfield 2,592]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes we have failings and the two-party system is a problem, more now then ever.  Trump did not deserve to be removed from office if the prosecutor could not prove he should be removed.  It was partisan, I agree, but if a President was to be removed from office it must be bipartisan.  That is the way the system is set up.

Don't act obtuse. The point is that even thought it was proven, members of those Presidents' own parties ignored it because of politics over doing the right thing. In their minds there was too much at stake to give any ground to the "other side." The exceptions being, of course, the Republicans that did cross party lines in their votes.

The very term "bi-partisan" is a reinforcement of the two-party system. I hate that we even have to use that word. How refreshing would it be if we could just focus on getting a majority, 2/3 majority, or super majority vote of independent thinkers instead of mostly partisan hacks?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Don't act obtuse. The point is that even thought it was proven, members of those Presidents' own parties ignored it because of politics over doing the right thing. In their minds there was too much at stake to give any ground to the "other side." The exceptions being, of course, the Republicans that did cross party lines in their votes.

The very term "bi-partisan" is a reinforcement of the two-party system. I hate that we even have to use that word. How refreshing would it be if we could just focus on getting a majority, 2/3 majority, or super majority vote of independent thinkers instead of mostly partisan hacks?

 

You believe I’m being *obtuse* because I don’t necessarily believe what you believe.  As an example; I don’t agree that Republicans voted just due to politics.  I believe the Republicans that voted to acquit did so because they felt there was not enough evidence brought up to vote a President out of office.

Who would pick these independent thinkers?

[Leftfield 2,592]

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I believe the Republicans that voted to acquit did so because they felt there was not enough evidence brought up to vote a President out of office.

Do you also believe the Democrats were of similar high character in Clinton's impeachment trial?

 

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who would pick these independent thinkers?

Uh, voters. In elections and stuff. I'm talking about having more than two political parties, and a system where some can actually be elected as independents, beholden to no one but those they represent.

[DKW 86 7,418]

Just sayin, but in the Military, there is no "The other guy ****** it up." If the operation happened 7 months after you assumed command, its your baby. 2-3 months, there might be some leeway, but after 6 months? Nah, that one is on you.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

34 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Do you also believe the Democrats were of similar high character in Clinton's impeachment trial?

I really don’t give it much thought.  Is what it is, me being upset or disgusted won’t change anything. 

39 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Uh, voters. In elections and stuff. I'm talking about having more than two political parties, and a system where some can actually be elected as independents, beholden to no one but those they represent.

That was my point.  An Independent party is years in the making.  Neither party wants to split allegiance at this time.  If some of each would go the moderate route it could happen, but that would assume the extremes don’t change. 

[AU9377 4,919]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

You believe I’m being *obtuse* because I don’t necessarily believe what you believe.  As an example; I don’t agree that Republicans voted just due to politics.  I believe the Republicans that voted to acquit did so because they felt there was not enough evidence brought up to vote a President out of office.

Who would pick these independent thinkers?

There is no human that understands the English language that could listen to the testimony of the long list of intelligence officers, U.S. Ambassadors and others and conclude that there was insufficient evidence. An honest statement on their part could be that they simply didn't believe that it warranted removal from office, but the evidence of what took place was barely challenged.  Of course, the easy thing to do was to simply pretend that what they heard was not what they heard. 

It was common knowledge that even the most extreme Republicans saw Trump as an unhinged man willing to do anything.  Only a few of them had the backbone to actually push back. Heck, Ted Cruz even sacrificed his own dignity to kiss the ring.

[creed 1,635]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, is defund the police an example of a negative view of an institution we should have faith and trust in? Yes and there are others. I guarantee it serves to divide our country especially domestically.  I think that is idiotic; how about you? Yes. Is it associated with any particular  political affiliation? Yes and there are examples from the other party.

When leaders of an institution act contrary to established rules (chain if command) they need to be called out.  In the military it is the most important code they live by.  The fictional character Colonel Jessup in the movie “A Few Good Men” was one of these type of men that believed his way was the way things should be run.  It happens and needs to be rooted out.  It does not mean ALL the military men and women are guilty of this just like it doesn’t mean all police officers are racist murderers. I see your point but that relates to every position in our institutions where there should be a code of conduct that represents the position in a positive, inclusive, and firm manner. Being a Twidiot is the first alarm to me that they don't respect the position.

Which belief do you believe divides the country more Creed?  Can you see the difference in the arguments? The belief that party is greater than country is very divisive. Our county will not fail because a foreign adversary attacks us on our own soil. Our adversaries know the only way to beat or weaken the United States is propagate distrust, doubt and division in it's citizens in their belief in our government and it's institutions. Basically, we destroy our country from the inside out.

I personally am grateful for the men and women of the Armed Services as I am grateful for the men and women of the Police.  Both must stay vigilant in vetting their leaders or the institution will suffer. I agree, but could that break the chain of command aspects you mentioned especially for those that fall under the that command?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

There is no human that understands the English language that could listen to the testimony of the long list of intelligence officers, U.S. Ambassadors and others and conclude that there was insufficient evidence. An honest statement on their part could be that they simply didn't believe that it warranted removal from office, but the evidence of what took place was barely challenged.  Of course, the easy thing to do was to simply pretend that what they heard was not what they heard. 

It was common knowledge that even the most extreme Republicans saw Trump as an unhinged man willing to do anything.  Only a few of them had the backbone to actually push back. Heck, Ted Cruz even sacrificed his own dignity to kiss the ring.

Well, that would be your perspective.  Any Republican that agrees with the Dems point of view is reasonable any other are Hitler.  Case in point; George W. was Hitler while he was President, but after his 9/11 speech this year he is a reasonable man. 

The bottom line is Trump was not guilty of bribery.

[AUFAN78 3,892]

9 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I agree that their main function is to advise. I just don't understand why you think that advice would have been different had Trump still been in office, and in either case I don't understand why you think he would have done any better. I'm not going to defend the way the drawdown was handled, other than to say that once it was announced it was always going to be messy because the Taliban could see a light at the end of the tunnel, but why do you think it would have been different with Trump? The man tried to do an end-run around around his top team to get the entire military out by January 15. That's just not a person that is focused on making sure all civilians and Afghan citizens who helped us can safely get out.

Out of Trump and Biden, which has shown a greater proclivity to trust their advisors and act according to their advice? Hell, just about every Biden critic on this board claims the man can barely remember his name, but in this case he was somehow barking orders and making plans to pull out despite the advice he was being given? Meanwhile, Trump was unwilling to trust the top virologists and epidemiologists in the world in the middle of a pandemic.

 

All good questions. 

The military had a plan for withdrawal in 2020. Call it a Trump plan if you wish, but the bottom line is he listened to experts, i.e. intelligence personnel and his generals which included Milley and Austin. The plan included keeping a force of 2500 soldiers in country. Milley and Austin agreed which is key here. Another key was no intent to give away Bagram. I don't ever think it was mentioned nor considered. If I recall correctly, there was to be 2500 US troops backed by a contingency of 3500 Afghan SF. So it contained Bagram, the troops which included intelligence and SF personnel and it included air support a critical component.

Post election, numerous meetings were held with former and new admin officials on the withdrawal plans. Intel officials, military officials, etc.  Milley and Austin were participating. 

Fast forward a few months and we have a debacle. The claim from the current admin that we had a deadline but no plan is utter BS.  Everyone involved in this admin today knows the "Trump Plan" was rejected and replaced with a dumpster fire. Yet current officials go out and make these bogus claims for the gullible to devour. This is where the "yes men" come into play. The generals were in the room when the Biden plan was concocted. They certainly knew the risks.

When we gave up Bagram and air support the Taliban leaped. The rest is now history littered with death and weakness. 

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

22 hours ago, Leftfield said:

How refreshing would it be if we could just focus on getting a majority, 2/3 majority, or super majority vote of independent thinkers instead of mostly partisan hacks?

Thinking about this; there are not many independent thinkers in Congress as these people are elected to express the concerns of the people who put them in office.  If they don’t express the *people’s* concerns they will loose their position.  Hence, the wishy washy talk by politicians until recently.  So, if you have a 3rd party, that 3rd party has to run on some sort of platform that will convince Republicans and Democrats to switch parties to have a viable 3rd party.

[homersapien 11,357]

23 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes we have failings and the two-party system is a problem, more now then ever.  Trump did not deserve to be removed from office if the prosecutor could not prove he should be removed.  It was partisan, I agree, but if a President was to be removed from office it must be bipartisan.  That is the way the system is set up.

Equating the senate with the jury in a legal trial is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on this forum.

[AU9377 4,919]

21 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, that would be your perspective.  Any Republican that agrees with the Dems point of view is reasonable any other are Hitler.  Case in point; George W. was Hitler while he was President, but after his 9/11 speech this year he is a reasonable man. 

The bottom line is Trump was not guilty of bribery.

..........and OJ was not guilty of killing his wife and a waiter.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

On 9/17/2021 at 12:39 PM, AU9377 said:

..........and OJ was not guilty of killing his wife and a waiter.

This is a correct statement, look it up.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted

You just can’t change history, unless of course you are Nicole Hanna-Jones.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

On 9/17/2021 at 12:20 PM, homersapien said:

Equating the senate with the jury in a legal trial is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on this forum.

Of course the Senate is equal to the jury in legal trials.  That’s the way impeachments are set up;

In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by simple majority vote, articles of impeachment. After the House of Representatives sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm

I’ve been on a jury that one member inserted their beliefs into the matter and did not listen to the facts.  The jury voted 11-1 guilty.  The perp got off.

Please explain where my perspective is wrong.

[jj3jordan 2,043]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course the Senate is equal to the jury in legal trials.  That’s the way impeachments are set up;

In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by simple majority vote, articles of impeachment. After the House of Representatives sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm

I’ve been on a jury that one member inserted their beliefs into the matter and did not listen to the facts.  The jury voted 11-1 guilty.  The perp got off.

Please explain where my perspective is wrong.

He is not really an explainer. Mostly demeaner and insulter.  Supports his position with opinion pieces from radicals or turncoats. 

[homersapien 11,357]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course the Senate is equal to the jury in legal trials.  That’s the way impeachments are set up;

In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by simple majority vote, articles of impeachment. After the House of Representatives sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm

I’ve been on a jury that one member inserted their beliefs into the matter and did not listen to the facts.  The jury voted 11-1 guilty.  The perp got off.

Please explain where my perspective is wrong.

It is self evident. 

Juries are selected by the attorneys representing each side of a dispute.  The prime criteria is one of objectivity. For example, one of the first questions they are asked is if they know the plaintiff or defendant. 

Now compare that to senators. An impeachment - as much as you want to think of it as a fair trial - is a completely political process.  The impeachments of Trump perfectly illustrate that.

Again, one of the more stupid things I have ever read on this forum.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It is self evident. 

Juries are selected by the attorneys representing each side of a dispute.  The prime criteria is one of objectivity. For example, one of the first questions they are asked is if they know the plaintiff or defendant. 

Now compare that to senators. An impeachment - as much as you want to think of it as a fair trial - is a completely political process.  The impeachments of Trump perfectly illustrate that.

Again, one of the more stupid things I have ever read on this forum.

There does seem to be a lot of confusion about this:

CHUCK SCHUMER: We've all been sworn in by the chief justice of the United States to serve as judges and jurors in the impeachment trial of President Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/798644714/are-the-senators-in-the-impeachment-trial-jurors-or-something-else

If you go to the link it does discuss your point, but the lack of common knowledge about the subject, even by the Senators, is evident. To my point, the impeachment trail is over and Trump was found not guilty no matter if you call the Senators judges, jurors or just plan Senators.

[homersapien 11,357]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

There does seem to be a lot of confusion about this:

CHUCK SCHUMER: We've all been sworn in by the chief justice of the United States to serve as judges and jurors in the impeachment trial of President Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/798644714/are-the-senators-in-the-impeachment-trial-jurors-or-something-else

If you go to the link it does discuss your point, but the lack of common knowledge about the subject, even by the Senators, is evident. To my point, the impeachment trail is over and Trump was found not guilty no matter if you call the Senators judges, jurors or just plan Senators.

You are obviously confused between the metaphorical use of the word "jury" (as applied above) and the literal use (as applied in our judicial system).

Now I might agree that the impeachment deserves senators to apply the values of a literal jury but it should be obvious that isn't gonna happen.  Unlike a legal trial, there are no senate rules or even customs that allow for it.

You and I both know that MAGA senators would acquit Trump even if  - as he himself bragged - he shot someone in public on 5th Ave. That's exactly what happened in the impeachments.  There was no way he was going to be held accountable regardless of the evidence he was guilty.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are obviously confused between the metaphorical use of the word "jury" (as applied above) and the literal use (as applied in our judicial system).

Now I might agree that the impeachment deserves senators to apply the values of a literal jury but it should be obvious that isn't gonna happen.  Unlike a legal trial, there are no senate rules or even customs that allow for it.

You and I both know that MAGA senators would acquit Trump even if  - as he himself bragged - he shot someone in public on 5th Ave. That's exactly what happened in the impeachments.  There was no way he was going to be held accountable regardless of the evidence he was guilty.

Wow, some common ground.