Syrian Hmong

[CJD]

(10-10-2019, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What aspect of "trashing the Constitution" are being defended?

The one that immediately pops out to me personally is the Trump administration's refusal to respond to sub poenas and requests for documentation calling the impeachment unconstitutional.

He's calling something unconstitutional when it is literally defined in the Constitution, Article I, section 2, that the House has the sole power of Impeachment.

He may disagree with the reasoning to begin the process, but calling it unconstitutional is blatantly incorrect and you could interpret his insistence to lie about the contents of the Constitution as "trashing the Constitution." 

[Dill]

(10-10-2019, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What aspect of "trashing the Constitution" are being defended?

Trump's defiance of legal, Congressional supoenas comes to mind here, which is vigorously supported by Jim Jordan, Lindsay Graham, and the party of lockstep.

(10-10-2019, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They may be "lining up" but I'm not sure the question posed has been answered; folks just sharing their thoughts on POTUS. Allow me to answer it directly. I am in favor of Military occupation in the ME and have always suggested it be expanded. So I can freely say I disagree with Trump's decision to pull out of the ME. Like most situation I would want this occupation to be a coalition.

Pretty sure your question was answered. The majority of people who have so far posted are not in favor of abandoning the Kurds. That means they are not in favor of pulling out of the ME altogether.  Or were you asking about support for "occupying" the whole ME or something?

"Military occupation" is another issue.  Occupation is what Israel has done to the West Bank. The Syrian campaign is not an occupation, nor is our presence in Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, or Syria.

This "occupation" was a coalition of some 80 countries--now all confused and adrift, as so many of our allies were after Trump pulled out of the Iran deal.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-10-2019, 12:25 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The one that immediately pops out to me personally is the Trump administration's refusal to respond to sub poenas and requests for documentation calling the impeachment unconstitutional.

He's calling something unconstitutional when it is literally defined in the Constitution, Article I, section 2, that the House has the sole power of Impeachment.

He may disagree with the reasoning to begin the process, but calling it unconstitutional is blatantly incorrect and you could interpret his insistence to lie about the contents of the Constitution as "trashing the Constitution." 

(10-10-2019, 12:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump's defiance of legal, Congressional supoenas comes to mind here, which is vigorously supported by Jim Jordan, Lindsay Graham, and the party of lockstep.


Pretty sure your question was answered. The majority of people who have so far posted are not in favor of abandoning the Kurds. That means they are not in favor of pulling out of the ME altogether.  Or were you asking about support for "occupying" the whole ME or something?

"Military occupation" is another issue.  Occupation is what Israel has done to the West Bank. The Syrian campaign is not an occupation, nor is our presence in Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, or Syria.

This "occupation" was a coalition of some 80 countries--now all confused and adrift, as so many of our allies were after Trump pulled out of the Iran deal.  

What I've read doesn't make it as cut and dry as you guys assert. From what I understand Congress has not voted on impeachment and therefore POTUS is not bound to testify. I'm sure we all would love for him to open and transparent but is he trashing the Constitution for refusing to do so at this time?

[Bengalzona]

(10-10-2019, 12:24 PM)Dill Wrote: And just how many were at NORMANDY!!?? 

Where were they when we needed them most?

They were fighting against the Nazi-led coup in Iraq...

which kept Axis allies from moving further East into Iran (a plan they actually had in an effort to link with the Japanese further East)....

where we had set up massive shipping facilities and rail lines to pump U.S. trucks and lend-lease war materials into the Soviet Union....

which made their massive land offensives in the East possible...

which drained German personnel and resources from the West....

which saved GI lives on D-day and helped ensure the success of Operation Overlord.

[Dill]

(10-10-2019, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What I've read doesn't make it as cut and dry as you guys assert. From what I understand Congress has not voted on impeachment and therefore POTUS is not bound to testify. I'm sure we all would love for him to open and transparent but is he trashing the Constitution for refusing to do so at this time?

Not about Trump's "testimony." He is refusing to honor subpoenas and forbidding all exec employees' testimony.  That is cut and dried.

Voting for impeachment has nothing to do with the process at the moment, or Trump's obstruction. 

And yes, that is trashing the Constitution. He used his official state power for private gain, and is now using it to deflect legitimate, constitutional oversight in the form of an investigation into his abuse of office.  

[Dill]

(10-10-2019, 12:51 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: They were fighting against the Nazi-led coup in Iraq...

which kept Axis allies from moving further East into Iran (a plan they actually had in an effort to link with the Japanese further East)....

where we had set up massive shipping facilities and rail lines to pump U.S. trucks and lend-lease war materials into the Soviet Union....

which made their massive land offensives in the East possible...

which drained German personnel and resources from the West....

which saved GI lives on D-day and helped ensure the success of Operation Overlord.

Pretty sure that some Trump supporters will stop reading at the word "Iraq," which refers to a country nowhere near Normandy. And Arabs anyway.

Your delineation of the strategic importance is nevertheless faultless and illuminating.  Even Trump defenders will appreciate it, even if supporters don't.

[Bengalzona]

(10-10-2019, 03:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Pretty sure that some Trump supporters will stop reading at the word "Iraq," which refers to a country nowhere near Normandy. And Arabs anyway.

Your delineation of the strategic importance is nevertheless faultless and illuminating.  Even Trump defenders will appreciate it, even if supporters don't.

The lend-lease path through Persia to Russia was longer, but also far more safer than the Murmansk/Archarngel route. Routes through the South Pacific and Indian Oceans had a much lower risk of submarine attack. Once the Persia route opened, the vast majority of material ran through there.

Germany and Japan had plans to try and create a land bridge of occupied or allied territories between them meeting at the Persian/India border (Pakistan still being part of India back then) where supplies and technology could be exchanged. The Japanese made it as far as Burma, just East of India. They felt that if they reached the India border, they could have awakened an uprising among the people there (to some degree that could have been possible, they were able to recruit Indian troops into their army). The German attempt focused on swaying Turkey, the coup in Iraq and an attempt to seize Persia (only possible if Army Group South took and held Stalingrad). The Turkey remained wishy-washy, the coup failed and Stalingrad didn't, thus their plans failed.

[Dill]

(10-10-2019, 04:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The Japanese made it as far as Burma, just East of India. They felt that if they reached the India border, they could have awakened an uprising among the people there (to some degree that could have been possible, they were able to recruit Indian troops into their army). The German attempt focused on swaying Turkey, the coup in Iraq and an attempt to seize Persia (only possible if Army Group South took and held Stalingrad). The Turkey remained wishy-washy, the coup failed and Stalingrad didn't, thus their plans failed.

Swaying Turkey had the obvious obstacle--a REPEAT of choosing the losing side.

India was another matter. There was much agitation for independence. British responses were at times overly brutal, like the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre which killed 400 unarmed, peaceful protestors. The British let loose yet another famine (like the Bengal one of the 1850s) in 1942 by commandeering Indian rice for the war effort. So Japanese talk of a "Greater East-Asia Prosperity Sphere" which could include South Asia would fall on some eager ears, along with the goal of throwing off the yoke of the White Devil. I suspect, though, the occupation of China made potential partners very wary of what a Japanese occupation might really be like.

Looks like the Japanese almost had their end of the land bridge under control. Germans let the Kurds (and Persians and Russians) stop them. lol

[BmorePat87]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/10/lindsey-graham-trump-hoax-call-043991?fbclid=IwAR0FtaGTa2oD6jQ5xo9OgYV5Iz1Q3qMMN3Ouu8-TSBthSiKCoY2QqUbRJvw

In August, Lindsey Graham got prank called by some Russians who have possible ties to the Kremlin. the calls were recently released. Believing the call to be from the Turkish defense minister, Graham refers to the "Kurdish problem" that Turkey has and mentions Trump's desire to help out an associate of Guilliani that was sentences to time in prison for laundering money through Turkish banks.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2019, 12:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/10/lindsey-graham-trump-hoax-call-043991?fbclid=IwAR0FtaGTa2oD6jQ5xo9OgYV5Iz1Q3qMMN3Ouu8-TSBthSiKCoY2QqUbRJvw

In August, Lindsey Graham got prank called by some Russians who have possible ties to the Kremlin. the calls were recently released. Believing the call to be from the Turkish defense minister, Graham refers to the "Kurdish problem" that Turkey has and mentions Trump's desire to help out an associate of Guilliani that was sentences to time in prison for laundering money through Turkish banks.

Man, it is ALMOST like all these guys are in cahoots and doing all kinds of shady business.

But, (shrugs shoulders) what can you do?  

[GMDino]

US joins Russia to scuttle UNSC action on Turkey’s invasion of Syria https://t.co/8yDDqz4AiM

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) October 11, 2019

 

[Dill]

(10-11-2019, 12:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/10/lindsey-graham-trump-hoax-call-043991?fbclid=IwAR0FtaGTa2oD6jQ5xo9OgYV5Iz1Q3qMMN3Ouu8-TSBthSiKCoY2QqUbRJvw

In August, Lindsey Graham got prank called by some Russians who have possible ties to the Kremlin. the calls were recently released. Believing the call to be from the Turkish defense minister, Graham refers to the "Kurdish problem" that Turkey has and mentions Trump's desire to help out an associate of Guilliani that was sentences to time in prison for laundering money through Turkish banks.

Jeezus. No kidding. Prank calls of this nature could also be used for blackmail, to influence US policy.

While the pranks appear on their face to have been relatively harmless, the incident suggests it’s getting easier for bad actors to elicit sensitive information from policymakers.

Wonder what the alternative was to relying on the Kurds--40,000 U.S. troops in Syria?  YPG=/=PKK.

“Your YPG Kurdish problem is a big problem,” Graham told the pranksters. He was referring to the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, a group that began fighting ISIS as part of the Syrian Democratic Forces in 2015—with support from the U.S.—but is considered a terrorist group by Turkey because of its push to establish an autonomous state for the Kurds on the Turkish-Syrian border.

“I told President Trump that Obama made a huge mistake in relying on the YPG Kurds,” Graham continued. “Everything I worried about has come true, and now we have to make sure Turkey is protected from this threat in Syria. I’m sympathetic to the YPG problem, and so is the president, quite frankly.”

OBAMA'S FAULT!  This would be funny if it didn't work on just enough Americans to keep the GOP Senate on Trump's side. The PKK originated back in the 70s, actually, an organization defending human rights of the Kurdish minority.

“If you read today — a couple of reports saying that when President Obama started this whole thing,” Trump said. “As you know, it was started by President Obama; he created a natural war with Turkey and their longtime enemy, PKK. And they’re still there.” Turkey has been in conflict with the P.K.K., also known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, since the 1980s. Both Turkey and the U.S. consider it a terrorist organization.

[Dill]

(10-11-2019, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Man, it is ALMOST like all these guys are in cahoots and doing all kinds of shady business.

But, (shrugs shoulders) what can you do?  

I'm sure "both sides" create shadow operations to get elected using foreign money in return for favors.

[*bfine32*]

(10-10-2019, 02:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Not about Trump's "testimony." He is refusing to honor subpoenas and forbidding all exec employees' testimony.  That is cut and dried.

Voting for impeachment has nothing to do with the process at the moment, or Trump's obstruction. 

And yes, that is trashing the Constitution. He used his official state power for private gain, and is now using it to deflect legitimate, constitutional oversight in the form of an investigation into his abuse of office.  

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/appeals-court-rules-house-trump-142133028.html

As I said maybe not cut and dry. In this instance the courts rule Trump must abide by a subpoena, but there was decent:

Quote:In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court batted away Trump's legal claims.


"Contrary to the President's arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply," Judge David Tatel wrote, joined by Judge Patricia Millett. Tatel was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Millett is an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Trump appointee Neomi Rao wrote in dissent that the committee should have asked for the records under the House's impeachment power, not its legislative authority.

"The Constitution and our historical practice draw a consistent line between the legislative and judicial powers of Congress. The majority crosses this boundary for the first time by upholding this subpoena investigating the illegal conduct of the President under the legislative power," Rao wrote

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling; as Federal Law is not my forte, but I will say how these opinions (and others) fell alone party lines such lead everyone to chuckle when they look at the blindfold on Lady Justice..

[jj22]

Turkey has "accidently" bombed American special forces.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-troops-syria-turkey-1464727

[Dill]

(10-11-2019, 04:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/appeals-court-rules-house-trump-142133028.html

As I said maybe not cut and dry. In this instance the courts rule Trump must abide by a subpoena, but there was decent:

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling; as Federal Law is not my forte, but I will say how these opinions (and others) fell alone party lines such lead everyone to chuckle when they look at the blindfold on Lady Justice..

On this view of legal opinions, it is hard to understand how Republican John Roberts could have saved Obamacare, or Kennedy become the swing vote on Obergefell vs Hodges.

You see no other possibilities here to account for different legal judgments than "party line"?

It is not possible that ONE SIDE could just be following a non-partisan understanding of the law while the OTHER was actively partisan? And appointed to be so?

And it could not be coincidence that the vote fell this way? And that a degree of partisanship is necessary to legal process?

I have noticed how, in the post truth era, ferreting out some political affiliation regularly settles motivation and automatically discredits: e.g., the Ukraine whistleblower is Dem who "worked under Biden."  And this affiliation, rather law applied to factual record, is what we should be looking at.

"Party line" is a short cut confirming pre-judgments, avoiding the effort of understanding the law, evidence, and circumstances of judgment.


Nothing to chuckle about, really, when some 38-40% of the electorate are doing this.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 06:23 PM)Dill Wrote: On this view of legal opinions, it is hard to understand how Republican John Roberts could have saved Obamacare, or Kennedy become the swing vote on Obergefell vs Hodges.

You see no other possibilities here to account for different legal judgments than "party line"?

It is not possible that ONE SIDE could just be following a non-partisan understanding of the law while the OTHER was actively partisan? And appointed to be so?

And it could not be coincidence that the vote fell this way? Or that a degree of partisanship is necessary to legal process?

I have noticed how, in the post truth era, ferreting out some political affiliation regularly settles motivation and automatically discredits: e.g., the Ukraine whistleblower is Dem who "worked under Biden."  And this affiliation, rather law applied to factual record, is what we should be looking at.

"Party line" is a short cut to pre-judgment, avoiding the effort of understanding the law, evidence, and circumstances of judgment.


Nothing to chuckle about, really, when some 38-40% of the electorate are doing this.

I suppose it's possible, but to be fair conservative judges can be partisan too. 

[*bfine32*]

OK Forum Member you are POTUS for a day:

What do you do if a NATO member and allies wants to fight another allies?

[Dill]

(10-11-2019, 08:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK Forum Member you are POTUS for a day:

What do you do if a NATO member and allies wants to fight another allies?

Unclear.

Are you asking 1) what to do if one NATO member wants to fight another NATO member,
or 2) if a NATO member wants to fight an ally--e.g., Poland declares war on South Korea?

If 1) the answer depends in part on who you are and who your allies are. If you are Montenegro you don't do anything.
If you are the U.S., you can probably prevent and/or stop any fighting by diplomatic and economic power--if you want to.

If 2) Since NATO is about protection against aggression directed at member states, then NATO is
bound to do nothing to help Poland attack SK.

[Dill]

(10-11-2019, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it's possible, but to be fair conservative judges can be partisan too. 

Now that's something to chuckle about.

We have a president now who DEMANDS that all his appointees put the Constitution about personal loyalty and adhere to rule of law.