TakeYouToTasker

No one here cares about you enough to hate you. I told you, months back, that your posting style was conducive to irrelevancy. You should have listened.

Oh, yes. I can certainly understand why the decision was made, and in the case of Iraq specifically, it very well may have been the best strategic move in the interests of the US (I believe it was Paul who first made that case here when I was still just lurking). I'm just unconvinced that it makes sense as a general policy, given the current political realities.

So the question then becomes, does it make sense to enter into a regime and cultural change with a 20-25 year exit strategy when our political discourse works in four year chunks, and at best will see 3-4, with the possibility of 6-7, different Administrations to execute properly?

It's really nothing more than supply and demand. When there is scarcity, a degree is worth something. When there is no scarcity, a degree is worth nothing, and can simply then be used as a tool for red lining by employers.

Again, I agree with this 100%. But it still doesn't account for the media and political realities here in the US. Those realities are that there will be elections, and whatever ongoing wars we are in, whether they are productive or not, will be used as a political tool by the opposition. The wars will be ended pre-maturely.

Bingo.

I agree with all of this, as we've discussed before. The problem is that the political realities in the United States made completing what was necessary in Iraq an impossibility. It likely would have required a stable US presence for at least another 15-20 years to accommodate a culture change, and for true peace, and the prosperity which accompanies, to emerge. And that's the problem. The political realities in the United States aren't going to change any time soon.

I understand the point you're making, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it doesn't answer the central portion of his question. The question, as I understand it, is: Given the political realities in the United States, media coverage, and general unwillingness of the population to spend it's sons, daughters, and treasure on prolonged foreign engagements; and given the amount of time and resources it takes to execute a wholesale regime and cultural change to implement a western democracy, do you believe doing so is possible? And if so, why?

If you had actually done any of this, it would be a well ingrained habit at this point. But, as you said, this is a message board, and this is America, so you're free to tell whatever lies you'd like. Just know that you aren't fooling anyone.

I was about to type something along the lines of "I don't want to live in a country where the phrase President Al Franken isn't laughably absurd." But then I remembered President Donald Trump.

Bingo.

I think it's far more likely that this was hooliganism.

They are worried about being challenged in their primaries from the left, not about losing to a Republican.

I think he's just looking forward the labor camp lifestyle.

The problem is getting elected in the first place, and then the stewardship of the seat. There is no incentive to "get things done", which is far to broad of a term to be meaningful anyway. You'll still be electing Senators representative of their party's base, which means they will be hyper partisan. This will be the case as long as Senators are elected directly by the people, which is the reason why the Senate wasn't designed to be elected by individual citizens. It was designed to be a check and balance on the House, which was designed to be closest to the people, and as such would carve out alliances all across the political spectrum, which would have to be cobbled together in coalitions to advance legislation. As long as the Senate is acting as a "Super House of Representatives" itself, it will be unable to be a check on the actual House. Repeal the 17th.

I'm curious why the poster believes anyone doing difficult, high stress, or physically demanding jobs would continue to do them? I have made more sacrifices than I can count, working an absurd amount of hours, in order to get into the position that I hold. In the environment he describes, I wouldn't have done any of it. I'd be content to work what today would be described as a minimum wage job, and earn the exact same as everyone else with no meaningful reason to set myself apart. Aside from being incredibly immoral, the system described is absolutely unworkable, as those who do and create stop doing and creating.

Even if Trump were to replace Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Breyer with hard line social conservatives, which he won't because Senate Republicans wouldn't support it, and it doesn't fit with his own politics; the Court still wouldn't have enough votes to overturn Roe.

Everyone gets 3.5, a hammer, and a bicycle.

Is that because you want mass scale starvation, roving death squads, violent unrest, and a total break down of society plunging us back into the dark ages?

That was an important element as well. With the global power vacuum President Obama created through his "foreign policy exclusively for the purposes of domestic electoral politics", he emboldened China and North Korea in addition to rogue governments in the Middle East, and Northern Africa. Our actions in Syria in response to Assad speak to all geo-political foes that America is back in charge; and that dogs will heal, and keepers of dogs will keep them on a leash.

The Senates Constitutional duty is to "advise and consent". The Constitution does not describe the process by which this is to be done, but rather leaves it to the Senate to define the process per it's own rules. With that said, the Senate absolutely met it's Constitutional obligation in regards to Merrick Garland. And of course there was partisan hackery by Republicans. They weren't left with much choice given the political environment created by Senate Democrats, including the stance of then Senator Joe Biden who spelled out exactly the strategy the Republicans used when it was politically convenient for Senate Democrats. The Republicans were doing nothing more than playing by the rules the Democrats established. As for term limits? Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. If you want to solve the problem of hard line party politics in the Senate, the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. The way Senators are currently elected they need to report to the fringes of their respective bases, just like the House. As long as Senators are required to represent those elements of their party to hold office, term limits won't help as you'll just have more rapid turnover of the same sort of candidate. To solve the problem, you have to change the type of candidate getting elected. To do that, Senators must return to being representatives of the state governments.

That's because you're incapable of objectively calling balls and strikes. You are letting your personal distaste for the man color your judgment. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge surrounding policy initiatives. First, there was no "muslim ban"; there was a temporary travel ban put in place from a list of very specific countries whose governments either do not exist, or won't aid us in our vetting process. That was the standard. The ban being struck down was one of the most extra-Constitutionally dangerous things I've ever seen from the courts, with the ruling being not placed on the wording of the President's order, but rather the entering of campaign statements into a legal opinion. Second, the President immediately put into place steps to get our border under control on many fronts. He instructed ICE to do it's job, and changed the way the department handles it's priorities by executive order. This was intentional. The fact that you have to give him grudging support speaks volumes about your inability to be objective here. What the President did was engage in force diplomacy. Assad, a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, was testing the resolve of the current President as he did the last. This President responded incredibly appropriately. It served as a check on both Assad, who now knows his actions will have consequences; and on Russia and Putin, who have been informed that they had best do a better job keeping their dog on a leash.

This is a biased reporting which reflects only the author's desire to see the President fail. Calling balls and strikes with this administration, he's been mostly positive with a few negatives. Everything he's done in regards to border enforcement has been a huge win given this was his major campaign issue, his nomination of Gorsuch to the SCOTUS was everything a conservative/libertarian could have hoped for, his response in Syria was a breath of fresh air after the last eight years of non-foreign policy/appeasement. The only true downside was his poorly rolled out travel ban. Everything else is pretty much par for the course for a new President learning on the job.

"Decent people like Steve Bannon" Said no one ever.

We really have a thread where someone is trying to make an apples to apples comparison between speed limits and a $15 minimum wage?