wtf is an ethernet cable?
Oh wait I remember those.
Printable View
wtf is an ethernet cable?
Oh wait I remember those.
lol wtf is going on with everyone's eye line? Is there are three ring circus being performed?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Hardened laptops aren't allowed to use wifi, so the cables look standard. Seems there's 2 different networks available, probably for two different security classifications.
Nothing says 'hi-tech' more than a bunch of tangled loose cables, everyone knows that.
Trump's laptop is probably showing Call of Duty.
Everyone is looking in a different direction because they're too embarrassed to look at the camera.
Poop, do you not think cocco's explanation is credible?
Throw an irregularity or two into a photo and you sometimes get people thinking past the sale.
Sure it was. I was referring to the idea of having the cables looking like a disorganized mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ah, it's 3D chess again.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The yellow ones are plugged in. The red ones aren't. Looks pretty organised to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Did you see the part where Trump told them to pull the cables out of the trunking so it'd look more 'sophisticated?'. That's what I'm laughing at.
And do you think it looks 'sophisticated' in your photo op to have a loose cable sitting on top not connected to anything?
No. It doesn't look more sophisticated though, it just looks like they're on the yellow channel, and the red ones are untidy simply because they need to be readily accessible.Quote:
Did you see the part where Trump told them to pull the cables out of the trunking so it'd look more 'sophisticated?'
If he deliberately did it for the cameras, yeah that's worthy of mockery.
Honestly, no one would be going in so hard on the picture if Trump didn't insist on claiming to have one upped Obama. He drew the comparisons, needlessly, and, in turn, being the visual creatures we are, we're shitting on his situation room photo op, because Obama's was objectively so much better. Beyond one just being a better photo, if you chose to read into them, especially when they're side by side, they say a ton about each man, and each man's administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://i.imgur.com/F9ObzVV.jpg
https://imgur.com/a/nhnsR6x
Trump's looks like people gathering for a photo op with no-one knowing where they're supposed to look. Obama's looks like people actually doing work and not just trying to look like they might be doing work.
It's a sales technique he uses. I'm not sure how effective it is, and I wouldn't use it the way he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're right, they do say a ton about each man. I like Obama's photo much better. Trump's looks very silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The sale Trump is thinking past with this photo is likely (1) being imagined as Head of State and (2) associated with deadness of Bagh-Deadi. Obama didn't need sale #1, but Trump needs it big time to survive. It probably would have hurt Obama to hamfist that sale. Obama sitting on the side in casual dress is a great image for him in this situation.
Is Trump's photo a good image for him? The photo is dumb, but it sells him as Head of State because everybody's arguing over the silly details of a photo where the backdrop is Trump looking exactly the way he wants to look.
Obama's looks like they're watching Two Girls One Cup. Trump's looks like he's put cardboard cutouts of pretend officials there. The gormless black haired dude looks real, but the others look fake.
Trump's doing that squinty-eyes thing that always reminds me of the movie Get Shorty.
Skip the first minute for the exact dialogue I'm referring to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H8EmzfVSbg
It's like Trump thinks that squinting his eyes makes him look thoughtful or serious, but it really doesn't.
EDIT: his frown makes him look serious, but not the squint.
2x lolQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
In Trump's photo, the guy on the left looks like he's been caught mid-fart. Pence knows.
Clinton's all, "Try to look shocked. Hand on mouth. Yeah. No one will notice my eyes."
Biden's like, "not bad. I give it an 8."
Good analysis. Trump's play here, if intentional, is like a dictator that wears military fatigues with an absurd amount of brass pinned to them-- this always hit me as silly and an illustration of their delusions of grandeur, but you make a good point: there's an audience for everything and they may just be pandering to that audience. And it's not that Obama is immune from this analysis either. To some he probably looks weak and ineffectual off in the corner like that, but to the audience that matters more to him, he comes across as confident and uninterested in self indulgent pomp.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yet even if we are cynical on both accounts, in this narrow circumstance in a vacuum, I find it hard to not prefer the president who's pretending at higher minded ideals. Nonetheless, your point that doing so may simply not be a viable option for Trump in this moment is not lost on me.
You make some great points.
So the rules of the impeachment proceedings laid out by Pelosi allow Trump to both testity and ask questions at his own hearings. I know he won't go, but God it's fun to imagine the potenital shitshow that would be.
Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings. Still, the Congressional R's are crying foul play. Turns out they're upset because the Clinton case was blown open as a part of a much wider investigation, so the Clinton impeachment proceedings started with a ton more general knowledge of the facts by both parties. Whereas in the Nixon case and the current case, the closed door investigations have whatever info they have that is not on the public record at this point in the process.
There's no real precedent for impeachment proceedings, though*.. so if the R's argue that the availability of information in the Clinton case was good for everyone, then I'm open to changing the rules. They just have to swallow that pill the next time a Dem POTUS is on the hot seat. Which I'm fine with.
It wont change the fact that closed door investigations nearly always precede any open, formal investigations, and if the R's are crying that this is foul play, then that's nonsense. We definitely want to quietly weed out false and spurious claims from getting undue attention and this is done via closed door investigations.
* I mean, yes, there is the legal framework and there are a few instances where it's happened, but I don't think the current political climate puts too much weight on that. As I mentioned before, Trump got elected for things that Andrew Johnson got impeached for, so using the Johnson impeachment as a standard wont be a clean fit.
Nixon had lost his party's support by the time it got that far, whereas Trump still has his party's and his base's support.
Clinton lied about sex in public in America. While under oath! Yeah. That was juicy, right? It's nothing like this case, though, so treating it like a precedent is again, not a clean fit.
My understanding is Pelosi's proceedings are more 'generous' in that Nixon wasn't invited to testify/cross-examine at his, which I'm sure he could have done better than Trump had it come to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
And yeah, if you can impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob you can impeach another guy for holding up foreign aid in return for getting dirt on a political opponent. Even Watergate looks tame compared to that. Both were shady election shit, but Trump's has serious consequences for foreign policy whereas Nixon's didn't.
I don't think you can directly link those 2 things. While on paper the Clinton scandal was an impeachment proceeding, I don't think it's really the best comparison for what's going on today. The Ukraine scandal is much more like Nixon's watergate than an inconsequential lie under oath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We'll see, at any rate.
Americans are screeching harpys when it comes to a couple of things. 1) Americans are shady AF when it comes to talking about sex. Even couples who've been having sex for years probably don't talk about it much if at all. 2) Catching someone in a personal lie that shows they have some insecurity is blood in the water.
Clinton got caught in a lie, and that lie was about sex. America was frothing at the mouth. The fact that he did so while under oath was just pouring gas on the flame.
He was cheating on his wife. Lol obv. he lies about that. BUT he did so while under oath. It just ticked all the boxes for Americans to put on our holier-than-thou hats and riot.
Most people didn't actually care, but were entertained by the noise. Most people didn't even know at the time that he was impeached. I'd wager that most people today don't think Clinton was impeached, since he never left office, and that's the one thing Americans know about impeachment: It's how you de-president someone.
When it comes to Trump... keep in mind that the Congressional R's and his Rep base are still in support of Trump. Clinton's supporters were not defending him that hard when it came to his lie. He was caught on tape, in a court of law. The meaning of the word "is" got brought into question. How is it not great fun to mock that? Dems were mocking Clinton, but not really turning against him politically. No one on the D side really was ever planning on kicking him out of office, AFAIK. It was just a glorious shit show that everyone could cash in on for some press time and so it went.
Looking back, it's hard to see the Clinton impeachment as anything other than a huge publicity stunt, though none of the people that gained from the publicity really had any hand in creating the stunt... but they sure had a hand in prolonging the attention it got. It didn't even really hurt Bill long-term and Hillary remained a political powerhouse after the humiliation of the cheating scandal subsided.
Trump update:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...153261568?s=20
That, "... or something," is a weird moment.
I'd actually enjoy it if more politicians ended their sentences that way.
It adds a little credibility for them to openly state they have no credibility.
Oh god, I'm part of the problem.
Damn, maybe Trump does hire the best people. Or at least ones that aren't willing to go to jail for him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VspIIHuXqdw
He is incomprehensibly stupid.
I'm just now catching up on the hearings. Coming from Mueller doing his cute little dance, it's comforting to see no-bullshit testimonies from pre-geriatric government officials.
"I want nothing! Just tell them that they'll get the money when they 'investigate corruption.' But no quid pro quo. Do make sure they do the thing and they'll get the money. BUT I don't want that! I want nothing! Just make sure they know if they do the thing they'll get the money, alright. But no quid pro quo. I want nothing!"
But Sondland, Vindman, and Pence's hireling are all "never Trumpers" lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Man, this ship is sinking. Fast. Even the Dems can't fuck this up.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the Senate.
Let's say this is an accurate representation of a conversation that happened. How amazing would that be!
Sondland: What do you want Mr President, what do you want? What do you want from Ukraine? What do you want? I hear all these theories, what do you want?
Trump: I want nothing! That's what I want from Ukraine. I want nothing!
Sondland: What do you want? I keep hearing all these things. What do you want?
Trump: I want nothing! I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo! Tell Salinsky to do the right thing! I want nothing! I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo!
Sondland: This is the final word from the president of the united states: "I want nothing."
David Zucker and Jim Abrams need to come back to do a movie about the Trump presidency. They're the only ones who can do it!
That convo seems plausible.
I think Scorcese should do it. Joe Pesci can play Don Jr.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Tim and Eric would be a solid 2nd choice for me.
I'm really going to miss him. Are they going to let him tweet from prison I wonder?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6x5iZQBTxg
Mani from Florida with one of the greatest CSPAN calls ever:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...313200640?s=20
It's not often Twitter gets a reaction out of me, but that made me laugh.
The state of the maga cult right now:
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...8/trump_tweet/
https://i.imgur.com/S7fSiAT.jpg
Haha, that Trump. You never know what he's going to do next. Good thing he's in charge of the world's most powerful military and has the nuclear launch codes and doesn't feel the need to ask congress if the US can go to war.
UN already saying what Trump did was "probably" illegal.
I'm surprised how long it took. You don't put John Bolton in your cabinet and get out of the Iran Nuclear Deal in order not to go to war with Iran. I guess he got cold feet at least once that we know of, but it's election year so I guess he has to.
That's cause you dont play 3D chess. What looks like dangerous incompetence to us is just Trump disguising how he's like, really smart. I mean who else can see how killing one of a hostile country's top leaders is de-escalating things.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Even Tucker doesn't get it, that's how advanced this move is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlcsuJtXYkM
Still waiting to hear the evidence of an imminent threat. But, I'm sure the WH will be releasing a picture of Sulemani with a sword drawn in his hands with a sharpie pretty soon.
You won't. The words "imminent threat" were carefully chosen to refer to the Bethlehem Doctrine (named after a person, not the place). This is a document that "justifies" extrajudicial state assassinations on the basis of self defence. In this document, the meaning of "imminent threat" is not what normal people who speak English would imagine, in that "imminent" does not mean "soon" or "inevitable". In fact, if there is any evidence that someone might have been planning an attack at any time in the past or the present, then they will use the phrase "imminent threat". It's like playing chess and killing you opponent after one move because he might checkmate you. This document was created by a guy who worked as a legal advisor first for Netanyahu and then for Blair, and it only seems to hold weight with the governments of UK, USA and Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
With that said, I'm not sure why people are so fucking outraged by this. Sure its legality is extremely tenuous, but USA have hardly cared about "legality" for decades, and taking out a general seems like a more civilised method of warfare than regime change, enforced by relentless air strikes and drone attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure like airports and hospitals. Or even funding the opposition, no matter how brutal and criminal they are.
I couldn't give a fuck about an Iranian general, especially one allegedly responsible for the killing of many Iranian protesters. The Iranian people are a great culture compared to places like Saudi Arabia, but their leaders, political and military, can go fuck themselves for all I care.
I haven't heard of anyone suggesting this was bad because they have intimate feelings about Soleimani. This is bad because at best this ends with an exchange of airstrikes and a couple hundred civilian casualties, and at worst it's all-out war with Iran and hundreds of thousand civilian casualties.
Reading up on the Bethlehem Doctrine... interesting stuff. When did lying become this complicated?
Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice.
If he does get assassinated, my money is on it being an inside job.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Or, they could just get the fuck out of the whole continent.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The one thing Trump had going for him was he wasn't a warmonger. So much for that.
Best case scenario is Iran shit themselves and do not further antogonise a very unpredictable and powerful enemy. When generals get droned, that's a game changer. Suddenly the Mullahs themselves are thinking they could be next. Worst case scenario, yeah all out war. The Mullahs themselves are unpredictable, and they do have powerful allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's amusing you have enough insight to recognise the potential problems Trump's aggression might cause, yet you sit here and say that you'd be glad if he got assassinated, completely oblivious to the shitstorm that would create, ie civil war. On the one hand, you're anti-war when it comes to the Middle East, and on the other you're pro-war when it comes to internal USA politics. Do you really hate USA that much?Quote:
Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice.
If he's droning generals instead of civilians, he's doing better than Obama. Here's the thing... none of us here know what's really going on. I have no idea if Iran are a genuine enemy or not. It seems odd to me that we're having a go at Shiites, when it's Sunnis that have caused us problems and foster global terrorism, but I long ago gave up hope of understanding Middle Eastern geopolitics.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I'd definitely prefer it if USA, UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia didn't have this insane alliance that opposes Iran. It would be nice if war didn't happen. But it does. The next best thing after no war is being on the winning side. I'd rather be on USA's side than anyone else's, that's for sure.
Baron Trump!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Calling it now.
What I would like to see for my personal entertainment is not necessarily what I would wish on world history.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Video footage of Spoon and Wuf new year's eve 2020: https://twitter.com/Stop_Trump20/sta...854704640?s=20
Imma gonna go out on a limb here and guess that he didn't put the order out to stop droning civilians, has been doing it the whole time and then got bored one day and decided to turn it up to 11 and who knows why the fuck he does anything...pretty sure though the guy who says you should kill terrorists' families wouldn't lose any sleep over some collateral dead brown people.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What I wonder about the Trump-assassinating-Iranian-General defenders is how much they would shit their pants if the top US general in Iraq got picked off, and the next day the Ayatollah tweeted an Iranian flag.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/14oZzUHvbQPs8o/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by ongbongtastic
Can anyone name a war America has won since WWII?
War On Christmas
Depends what you mean by "won". I think think of a fair few countries that have been fucked up by USA, but can't think of any that have caused any problems for USA on their own soil, or that of their allies. So... in that context, I can think of lots.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Trick question. Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
:p
Ok I have one suggestions that I think everyone can rally behind: Iran should retaliate by striking Trump properties and Congress needs to halt any military action against Iran. Iran wipes out what is left of his business and he can't use the US military to strike back because emoluments.
Hahaaaaaa! Banana republic. :highfive:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm going with a non-zero sum definition of win. So, you don't "win" by making the other country suffer more death and destruction from the war than you do. By that definition, the US "won" against N. Vietnam. By any other definition though, it lost. You only win if your country is better off after the war than before it, either economically, in terms of prestige, or in terms of security.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The US has been dumping trillions into wars in Asia since 1950 and has nothing to show for it afaict.
Well then America won every war it engaged in, because it continues to be the world's dominant economy, and that dominance is underpinned by their military aggression, securing global resources and maintaining the dollar as the prime petrocurrency.
From my pov, I'm on the winning side if I don't see war happening in the UK, or if I don't see disasterous economic consequences, despite us being involved. Not that I'm happy for us to be involved, just that if we're going to be, I'd rather be on Team America (fuck yeah).
Vietnam was a proxy war against the Soviets during the cold war. The soviet union no longer exists and the US does, so in that respect, at least, the US won the cold war.
I'd argue the Vietnam conflict wasn't really won by either side, the US or the Soviets. While the US took heavy losses and had to leave in a hurry, US culture has remained, not the soviet culture. There's McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi, I mean. In the sense that a war is a cultural takeover, this is a US win.
Though I dislike even talking about a "winner" in a war. Going to war means both sides have already lost. War is mostly just the violence that follows national failures.
Iran should retaliate by not hanging gays.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Sorry that was an oskar quote, not poop. I can't even edit/delete posts due to unknown errors.
Congress can't really stop POTUS from using the military however he pleases unless they remove him from office. He is the commander in chief of all the armed forces, after all.
POTUS can do whatever he wants with the US military for up to 90 days without any Congressional approval or oversight. Technically, Congress has to declare war for the use of military forces in armed conflict that lasts more than 90 days, but the reality is that just doesn't happen anymore. Congress just authorizes the use of military force without calling it an official policy of war.
Topically, the argument that Congress controls the purse ends up being moot in these cases. While Congress can pull the plug on the POTUS's military funding, the reality is that puts the soldiers in the field in danger, not POTUS. This is a powerful ethos in America that has been used to the same effect for decades. Once the troops are in the field, the idea of not supporting them is just not being heard by American citizens, regardless of party lines.
Are you familiar with the term "guns or butter?" History is full of examples of countries that tried to use guns to acquire more butter when they should have been making butter themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If that's too abstract for you, here's a more direct way of saying it: Spending money on aggressive wars almost never benefits a country economically compared to putting the same money back into its economy. If you took those trillions the US spent on projecting its power around the world (in places where it was never directly threatened mind you) in the last sixty years and instead used it to build trillions of dollars worth of roads, schools, technology, and whatnot in the US with it, there's no doubt they'd have more wealth and be more powerful today than they are now.
In fifty years when China takes over first place in the world it will be because they kept investing in their country, not investing in an oversized military they used to wave their dicks around the world.
This kind of ignores the fact that war is huge business.Quote:
Spending money on aggressive wars almost never benefits a country economically compared to putting the same money back into its economy.
And this assumes China's growth is sustainable. Spoiler - it's not. I mean, I'm no expert, but there's only so many ghost cities a country can build before the bust.Quote:
In fifty years when China takes over first place in the world it will be because they kept investing in their country, not investing in an oversized military they used to wave their dicks around the world.
You're making it more complicated than it is. A million dollars worth of bombs that are dropped on some foreign countries is not the same as a million dollars worth of road improvements or schools or tech investment. There's no return on the bombs, they don't make your country richer. There's return on the other investments.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm not an expert either but I know enough about history that countries' relative power is not a static thing. I think that's pretty obvious. Its also a historical pattern that the most powerful country overspends and overextends itself militarily until it's no longer the most powerful country. That's going to happen to the US eventually (at least the way it's going now). And the most likely country that's on a trajectory to replace it at the top is China.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
USA already has adequate roads and world class schools, they already lead the world when it comes to innovation.Quote:
You're making it more complicated than it is. A million dollars worth of bombs that are dropped on some foreign countries is not the same as a million dollars worth of road improvements or schools or tech investment. There's no return on the bombs, they don't make your country richer. There's return on the other investments.
I don't think I'm making it complicated enough, Geopolitics is complex as fuck. What I can say with reasonable confidence is that those in power in the USA, and I'm not talking about presidents, are not stupid. They are intelligent sociopaths or maybe even psychopaths that understand the complexities a great deal better than I do. With that said, why do they prefer to invest in war than roads and tech? Corruption and personal greed? Maybe. Or economic self preservation? Also maybe. What I do know is that lots of countries have large reserves of dollars, which means that if the dollar crashes, so do lots of economies around the world. That's no accident. USA have created this situation to ensure that any attack on the dollar is mutually disadvantageous.
I'm probably in agreement with most of this. I just don't see China replacing them, not the way they're going. Their ambitions seem very short term. Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit, maybe these ghost cities are a well considered plan for the future, but it seems to me that it's just creating growth for the sake of it.Quote:
I'm not an expert either but I know enough about history that countries' relative power is not a static thing. I think that's pretty obvious. Its also a historical pattern that the most powerful country overspends and overextends itself militarily until it's no longer the most powerful country. That's going to happen to the US eventually (at least the way it's going now). And the most likely country that's on a trajectory to replace it at the top is China.
"Adequate" is not really a worthy standard for a nation leading in innovation, IMO.
The fed only pays for interstate roads (highways), though, and those are pretty good (so long as you're not comparing them to German roads, lol). Most of the shitty roads are owned and maintained on state or local levels and they're quite often shit.
I am biased. StL has some of the worst maintained roads in the country, according to various surveys.
I'd say our colleges and universities are world class, but the lower education system is extremely hit and miss. Public schools vary wildly in quality, and even charter schools and other less public options can be average at best.
***
The economics of war is hard to wrap my head around.
I think of the Apollo missions and I want to say John Glen once retorted to criticism over the cost of the program by saying something to the effect of, "We didn't leave any bags of money on the moon. All that cost went to American scientists and businesses and went back into the American economy."
I know it's not a direct correlation to war costs. It's just not directly clear that spending money on bombs is a direct negative. Those people who got paid to make the bombs presumably spend their money on other American enterprises, enriching them and enabling them to innovate.
I think both Poopy and ong are making good points about this. The cost of the bombs could have gone into any research and had the same trickle-down effect on the rest of the economy. But the stability of the dollar is buoyed by our military strength. We use military strength to encourage other nations to buy into our dollar so they have a stake in keeping it stable.
I think it's pretty common knowledge that contractors and interest groups who make profits selling arms to the government are pulling a lot of the strings here. It's not because the US needs to overspend on military to protect itself. There's no country even within spitting distance of being able to hurt America. What, is Canada going to invade Montana?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Eisenhower warned about the growing military-industrial complex and how it was becoming too influential back in 1960. That was 60 years ago. All you have to do is look at a graph showing how the US spends more on military than the next ten biggest spenders combined to get an idea of how out of control it's gotten.
Not sure what this has to do with the conversation. No country is anywhere near capable of sinking the dollar, and military spending is not what's keeping it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I've read historians on this topic. According to them, military power comes from economic power, not the other way around. This year China will overtake the US in GDP. By 2030 India will overtake them too. That's doesn't mean they'll automatically be able to kick the US' ass in a war, but it does mean they'll be getting relatively more powerful as the decades go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Historically, there is a pattern of being the strongest country on the planet and the response to the inevitability of losing that status (someday) is to spend more and more on military to try to protect that status with the effect being that the status gets lost faster than it naturally would.
The UK, France, and Spain have all been in the US' position in the last few centuries. They've all overspent and overextended themselves militarily on wars in far off places they didn't need to be involved in, and this hastened their losing their status as superpowers (so the argument goes). For the US, this problem is multiplied by the corruption that leads it to not just overspend, but overspend to an absurd degree.