TakeYouToTasker

Government is incompetent. Individuals within government are not necessarily.

Locked in cages and then sautéed with mushrooms and Marsala. Again, it doesn't need to be either/or!

Seriously. They're the veal of people. Who doesn't like veal?

A loveable disgruntled porcupine.

Well, to be fair I am kind of an *****. But I'm the loveable kind.

Exactly correct.

It's both, Jim. America filled the void in the ME prior to the advent of neo-conservative foreign policy. We should return to Realist policy in regards to the ME, which still includes retaining the strategic ability to project force as necessary, without resorting to projecting force continuously as policy. Your attempt to frame this as an either/or scenario is inappropriate.

That's a non-answer. You can't pretend the ME doesn't have geo-political norms, and that that region doesn't have a massive impact on the foreign policy of every single industrialized nation on the planet. The world has gotten far too small for that, Jim; and there's no sound argument to be made for an isolationist approach to the region. If we ignore problems they don't go away, but rather they fester. Please note that I'm not making an argument for active, ongoing intervention in the region; I'm simply saying that our relationship with Israel is vital to us being able to exert our influence there as it's necessary.

Do you believe Americans are better off and safer when the geo-political norms report to American interests, or when they report to Russian or Chinese interests?

It's a globally interconnected economy. The US is the worlds largest oil producer, but prices are lower, and more stable (both things which are better for American business and consumers) when the US is the largest producer in an even larger global market. And it's not bad actors in the ME I'm talking about. It's the Russias and Chinas of the world who will flow into any space we vacate. While we occupy those spaces we can exert outsized influence on the world, and the world is better, and Americans are better off when we do. Someone will fill any void we make, and they won't have our best interests in mind.

The world abhors a power vacuum, and bad actors will rush to fill it. The world is safer for Americans when America is best able to exert it's influence and project it's power around the globe, especially in hostile regions. Israel is our strategic foothold in a region of immense economic and geopolitical importance.

You have articulated a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution. Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy for removing a President for committing "high crimes or misdemeanors" while in office. It was never intended to be used as a political tool for removing a duly elected President from office over political differences, which would fly against more than 230 years of Constitutional norms, and completely subvert our electoral process. There is no logical or moral argument to be made that this is proper in a system constructed on the principles of self-determination, designed to enshrine and protect the peaceful transition of power; and once a side has decided to whole sale strip the other of it's fundamental rights, it's time to start digging mass graves. You cannot, and should not, try to live peacefully with those who would systemically deny your natural rights. As to your final point, the side that I support, the side of freedom and rights, is the side that's armed and industrious.

Word salad? I'll assume you're far to stupid to discern the clearly made argument, or you're simply ignorant of what "word salad" means, and are dumb enough to use words and phrases you don't understand. Either is entirely plausible, so I'm unsure. Bill Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself, and was disbarred through a unanimous decision rendered by the SCOTUS. That's not a political impeachment. That was the President commiting "high crimes and misdemeanors" while holding office. I'm open to the argument, in fact I'd happily make it, that special prosecutors, as currently authorize, including their use under the Clinton Presidency, are the antithesis of the American principals of jurisprudence, and should be immediately suspended and never used again until law or Amendment can provide for their usage in a way which respects Constitutional norms. Something tells me you'll disagree until President Trump's family suffers some Constitutional injustice, however. You'll note I don't respond to the poster. I do believe, however, that a strong argument needs to be made for the benefit of discourse in general, and for the benefit of the reader. I'm happy to make that argument when I find it important. I hope I've done so.

Impeaching a duly elected President on political grounds is literally one group of partisans denying the rest of the country a voice in the prescribed Constitutional political process, and is just cause for violence. IE. "It doesn't matter who wins elections. We will undo the outcome if we don't like it." I've long held the belief that socialists and fascists are more valuable stacked in piles than standing in rooms, but acknowledge their right to participate in government and society so long as they respect the fundamental natural rights of everyone. A blatant disregard of the right of self-determination, the second tier of natural rights stacked on top of only property rights, it just cause to start to create those piles. There is no merit to continuing to prop up the facade of a peaceful democratic process once one side has completely disregarded it.

That song gives voice to one of the most despicable moral philosophies ever contrived.

Sounds more like a bartender peddling nonsense to daytime drunks who don't know any better.

We have a foundational principal of innocent until proven guilty in this country, which is the entire basis of liberal jurisprudence. That you're so quick to discard it reeks of fascist illiberalism. That said, an observation of the facts surrounding the case makes very clear that a reasonable person could assume someone scared, under assault from an unhinged mob, made a terrible mistake. It's why we use courts rather than lynch mobs. Now that he's been convicted by a jury of his peers, it's OK to condemn him. Hey, dopey, murder doesn't have transitive properties, so no, it's not "OK" to label people who aren't murderers as murderers; and while I find racially motivated politics completely abhorrent, it is possible for someone to be a very brave racist, and means that racists aren't necessarily sniveling cowards; though it does make them small minded ***** with bad ideas. And even then, there are gradients of small minded ***** with bad ideas. You, for instance, have amply demonstrated through your posting history that you are on that scale; and people who share your terribly flawed "moral" system have murdered millions of people in it's name. Because of this, do you feel it's justified to attach such labels to you assigning the most vile gradient; or would you rather simply be judged as a less cancerous small minded ***** with bad ideas?

It probably would, though I disagree with your assessment about "lacking a need for change". First past the post is one of two major reasons for two party domination of our system. It discourages voting for the true preferred candidate, and encourages voting for the perceived "lesser of two evils" from the two major parties in an effort not to "throw your vote away". Alternative choice voting would allow individuals to vote for their preferred candidate, and then built in run-off system would allow them to also vote for the "lesser of two evils" should their own preferred candidate not advance.

An alternative choice electoral system rather than first-past-the-post.

?

Joe, in this country we enjoy the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press (which I know you recognize because you rail against it in other threads), the right to bear arms, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to a trial by jury, the right to confront you accuser, etc. Those rights are very real, and Constitutionally protected. Make the case that we don't enjoy those rights.

It can exist under a plutocratic oligarchy, even though it's not a desirable system. Under a dictatorship it cannot exist.

No, we're not left to accept it. Yes, it is better than living under a dictatorship. Freedom is both fragile and precious, Joe. It's also exceedingly rare and difficult to achieve. It took humanity thousands of years to achieve. Don't be so quick to discard it.

That is exactly what it will be used for.

Is that camera man trying to get an up skirt?