USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

FlamingLiberal posted:

It�s insane that Rupert ran Fox until he was 92! years old. What is with these psycho billionaires who don�t want to retire?

They completely control their work environment, setting their own hours and traveling whenever they want. They delegate all the actual work to ambitious lieutenants, and delegate all their personal errands and whims to a small army of assistants.

His main job is just telling other people to do whatever he wants done, and the people under him handle the actual work to make those things happen. For him, "retiring" just means giving up power and control, without much real change to his actual lifestyle. He doesn't need more time to focus on hobbies, because running his media empire is his hobby.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 19:51

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Seriously, everyone ITT should watch Succession. It's practically a documentary about the Fox News C-suite

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:21

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

haveblue posted:

Seriously, everyone ITT should watch Succession. It's practically a documentary about the Fox News C-suite

I didn't learn until recently that Lachlan accused James of leaking lines to the writers of the show.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:23

aBagorn: Aug 26, 2004

Eric Cantonese posted:

I didn't learn until recently that Lachlan accused James of leaking lines to the writers of the show.

James sounds like the Siobhan of the family

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:24

Grater: Jul 11, 2001; Might seem like a nice guy, but cross me once...

Main Paineframe posted:

They completely control their work environment, setting their own hours and traveling whenever they want. They delegate all the actual work to ambitious lieutenants, and delegate all their personal errands and whims to a small army of assistants.

His main job is just telling other people to do whatever he wants done, and the people under him handle the actual work to make those things happen. For him, "retiring" just means giving up power and control, without much real change to his actual lifestyle. He doesn't need more time to focus on hobbies, because running his media empire is his hobby.

Jebus man, so clean, clear and succinct. This is exactly right but no one seems to realize it. Hell this describes the entire billionaire class.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:30

Zamujasa: Oct 27, 2010; Bread Liar

"Do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" describes the rich more than anything.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:31

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

TNR actually did the reverse Trump Safari!

https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1704799556209168604

quote:

�I think Donald Trump was the gateway drug that has drawn a lot of otherwise pretty standard Republicans to the Democratic Party over the last eight or nine years,� Zac McCrary, a veteran Democratic pollster, told The New Republic. �And a Never Trump Republican in 2016, two or three cycles later, turns into a pretty conventional Democrat up and down the ballot.�
...
With a Hispanic husband, Daddow-Rodriguez felt uncomfortable about Trump�s rise in light of his rhetoric on immigration. She didn�t vote for him in 2016, but didn�t vote for Clinton either, instead casting a ballot for Libertarian Gary Johnson before completely moving into the Democratic fold starting around 2017. And, if anything, she has become more steadfastly Democratic since Trump left office, because of the GOP�s opposition to abortion�and the Supreme Court decision by conservative justices that overturned the right to obtain one.

�The day that the abortion ban went into effect in Georgia, I became six weeks pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy,� Daddow-Rodriguez recalled. �I never, ever thought my medical choices were going to be restricted�. But when your own doctor asks you, if things go south, do you have the resources to go somewhere where you can get medical care? Yeah, that was enough for me. I will never vote for a Republican ever again.�

quote:

For Duncan, there is a clear lesson here, and it�s not purely one of demographic change. �As far as Republicans and moderates are concerned, I think it�s that Republicans don�t like crazy,� he said. In Duncan�s view, running Trump and candidates like Trump gave voters �an excuse to leave the Republican Party. It�s just really easy to explain to the watercooler. �Hey, I can�t��I mean, I hear this all day, every day��Hey, I can�t vote Republican until this party purges itself of hateful people like Donald Trump.�� But, he noted, these voters are �paying attention, because that suburban mom in Cobb County [near Atlanta] voted for Brian Kemp. Right? They�re articulate enough to understand who they�re voting for.� Still, he warned, time is running out for the GOP to win back these voters. �If we let this nonsense and Donald Trump go on too long, we�ll probably lose that voter for a lifetime,� he said.

quote:

The shift away from the GOP in this area �happened probably more quickly than I anticipated,� said a former officeholder who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about the region�s politics. �But for the time being, I think that the sentiment remains very strong�not that people are strongly supporting Biden, but they certainly are strongly un-supporting the former president.�

If the picture is a nuanced one, however, it�s clear that some former Republicans have quickly become ardent Democrats.

.....

Angie Jones grew up in a Republican family in east Tennessee, just a couple of hours north of Atlanta, and it wasn�t a casual attachment. Her father, a lawyer, worked on Senator Howard Baker�s campaigns, and as a result she spent part of her adolescence as a Senate page in the Capitol. Her youthful experience with the legislative process left her somewhat cynical about politics. Still, she voted Republican reliably, a habit she kept up after moving to Atlanta for college, getting married, having two daughters, and settling down in the prosperous suburb of Johns Creek. But the lifelong churchgoer eventually started questioning her worldview. The son of a family friend who also attended their church came out as gay, and it sparked an awful backlash from other church members. �That became a kind of watershed moment in my life,� she said.

�In the beginning, I blamed politics that infected the church for causing these otherwise good, decent people�and they are otherwise good, decent people. They�re not monsters. But they behaved like monsters towards the family,� she said. �And it�s easier for me to blame the politics that infected the church than to blame the religious belief that had infected the politics at that time. By the time Donald Trump came along, I�m not sure if the tail is wagging the dog or the dog is wagging the tail,� she added.

Jones was speaking to TNR at a Whole Foods in Sandy Springs, a suburb that was only incorporated as a city in 2005, when the wealthy, majority-white area effectively separated itself from Fulton County, the jurisdiction that includes Atlanta. Since then, it has grown far more diverse and far more progressive. A Romney voter in 2012, Jones cast her ballot for independent McMullin in 2016. She felt he was a decent man, and she was skeptical of Hillary Clinton�s chances to win Georgia. Her full-scale immersion in progressive politics didn�t begin until the next year, during the special election for Congress. �I went into one of [Ossoff�s] field offices and said, �I�m here to volunteer. I�ve never done anything on a political campaign. I have no idea what to do. But I felt like I needed to do something. And this is something I can do.�� (Daddow-Rodriguez lives in Sandy Springs herself, and likewise voted for Ossoff in 2017.)

I think that this anti-MAGA sentiment is showing up even among self-IDed Republicans, 2022 was a disaster of a midterm for the GOP, but it wasn't because of Democratic turnout, I think the electorate as a whole was R+2 or +3. It's clear that there are GE Republican voters who do care about things like small-l liberal democracy and won't vote for an absolute nutjob of a candidate just because they had an R next to their name, which was pretty much the opposite of the theory of politics that we all had been operating under since 2016. Issues and candidate quality matter.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:31

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The U.S. Court of Appeals has suspended a federal judge after nearly a year of erratic behavior and assumed mental decline. Judge Pauline Newman is 96 and refused to step down or take a reduced workload. For the last year, she famously grew paranoid that people were hacking her computer when she couldn't find files, asked to speak with a judge who had been dead for over a decade, and became unpredictably irritable and angry over tiny things. She refused to step down or take a reduced workload when the court tried to get her to slow down. She also refused to take any medical or mental health screening.

Oh no, who will defend patent trolls and big pharma now? I guess Americans will just stop inventing things.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:40

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

There were a series of secret meetings reported a month ago about the U.S. trying to negotiate a Middle East peace agreement between Israel, the Palestinians, and Saudi Arabia.

Israel has apparently agreed to pursue some of the conditions the U.S. laid out. The biggest one being supportive of nuclear power in Saudi Arabia.

The outline of the provisions they are working with right now:

- The U.S. and Israel would provide assistance to build and run a nuclear power plant in Saudi Arabia.

- The U.S. would largely run the facility and be in charge of the uranium-enrichment process. They are also considering having the uranium-enrichment facility be located outside of Saudi Arabia and allowing the U.S. to bring the enriched uranium to the power plant instead to keep enrichment material out of Saudi Arabia.

- If the enrichment was being done in Saudi Arabia, then there would also be agreements to install remote kill switches that only the U.S. had control over that would allow them to disable and brick any devices/facilities used for uranium-enrichment in case of an emergency or suspicion that they would use the enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

- Saudi Arabia would recognize Israel and assist in pushing other Middle East nations to formally recognize Israel.

- Israel would make security, financial, and territorial concessions to the Palestinians.

- Saudi Arabia would fund the Palestinian Authority's civilian government.

None of these are finalized or agreed to yet. Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians, and the U.S. have just agreed to work towards a deal with those goals as a framework. They are starting on the nuclear issue because they hope it will get everyone on board for larger issues, convince Israel to not attack Iran, convince Iran to stop enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels if they can guarantee Saudi Arabia won't have them, and make for a more stable Middle East where every country has formal relationships and talks.

There is obviously some significant opposition to this in Israel, in the U.S. from people concerned about taking away leverage from Israel, and from people in the U.S. concerned about treating Saudi Arabia as a legitimate major player in the region and having uranium enrichment facilities instead of shunning them.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1704869367693877567

quote:

Israel Considers Saudi Arabia�s Nuclear Program Under Potential Normalization Deal

Israeli officials are quietly working with the Biden administration on a polarizing proposal to set up a U.S.-run, uranium-enrichment operation in Saudi Arabia as part of a complex three-way deal to establish official diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern countries, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed top Israeli nuclear and security specialists to cooperate with U.S. negotiators as they try to reach a compromise that could allow Saudi Arabia to become the second country in the Middle East, after Iran, to openly enrich uranium, the officials said.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been negotiating the contours of a deal for Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel in exchange for helping the kingdom develop a civilian nuclear program with uranium enrichment on Saudi soil, among other concessions. Other aspects of the evolving deal are expected to include concessions for the Palestinians and U.S. security guarantees.

If Saudi Arabia agrees to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, it would pave the way for other Arab and Muslim nations to follow suit, effectively ending decades of ostracism for the Jewish state founded in 1948.

While neither the U.S. nor Israel has so far agreed on a plan that would allow uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia, doing so would represent a turnabout in decades of policy in both countries, where leaders across the political spectrum have worked to prevent Middle Eastern countries from developing the capability.

�Israeli support for Saudi enrichment would represent a radical policy shift for a country that has opposed nuclear proliferation in the Middle East since inception, and for a prime minister who has devoted his career to opposing Iranian enrichment,� said Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank in Washington that opposes the idea.

Although Israel won�t publicly admit it, it is the only country in the region with nuclear weapons�and it doesn�t want to see hostile nations join the small club. It is believed to use plutonium for its nuclear-weapons program, but Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu spent 18 years in prison after revealing details in the 1980s about the country�s secret weapons program, including information on a secret uranium-enrichment facility.

Saudi Arabia�s push to enrich uranium has emerged as one of the thorniest issues facing U.S. and Israeli leaders as they try to forge an agreement that could reshape the Middle East.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman described negotiations over normalization with Israel as serious and getting closer to a deal every day, while stipulating that his country would seek a nuclear weapon if Iran obtained one.

�If they get one, we have to get one,� he said in an interview aired Wednesday on Fox News. �For security reason and for balancing power in Middle East. But we don�t want to see that.�
Netanyahu�s instruction for Israeli officials to begin negotiations is the clearest sign yet that the Israeli prime minister is willing to allow Saudi Arabia to advance its nuclear ambitions, even though critics say such a move could accelerate an arms race in the region.

While the Biden administration is crafting plans for a U.S.-run, uranium-enrichment system in Saudi Arabia as an option to address the kingdom�s push to establish its own nuclear program, U.S. officials cautioned they are considering other alternatives. President Biden has yet to sign off on the idea of allowing uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Biden discussed the diplomatic gambit on Wednesday when he met Netanyahu in New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly�the first time the two men have met since the Israeli prime minister returned to the job in December.

�On the nuclear issue, we�ve seen completely eye to eye right from the start. On what we cannot do and what it is we might be able to do,� said a senior Israeli official of the U.S. and Israeli view on negotiations with the Saudis. The Israeli official said they would want to put �a lot� of safeguards on any Saudi enrichment program.

After the meeting, a senior Biden administration official said any support for Saudi Arabia�s nuclear ambitions would meet high standards.

�Whatever is done regarding civil nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia or anybody else, will meet stringent U.S. nonproliferation standards,� the U.S. official said.

Experts say there might be safeguards that could be put in place to remotely shut down an enrichment facility�from a formal remote shutdown mechanism to systems that speed up the centrifuges to the point where they break. However, there is no foolproof system for shutting down a facility remotely that can�t be tampered with and potentially blocked by those who physically control the location, say nuclear experts.

Saudi Arabia has been pushing for years to pursue its own uranium enrichment. But, in talks with the U.S., Saudi officials said they would accept a deal where the U.S. runs the facility. Saudi leaders compare the idea to the model used to develop Aramco, its state-owned oil company. Aramco was established in the 1930s with New York�s Standard Oil and initially known as the Arabian American Oil Company. Saudi Arabia threatened to nationalize the company in the 1950s and eventually took full control in 1980.

Democratic and Republican presidents have long resisted efforts by Middle Eastern countries to enrich uranium. In 2009, the U.S. signed a nuclear-development deal with the United Arab Emirates that precludes the Gulf nation from enriching uranium on its own soil. That deal has become known as the gold standard for U.S. nuclear cooperation with other nations, and offering Saudi Arabia more than that would set a new bar.

Some Israeli leaders worry that U.S. support for a civilian nuclear program in Saudi Arabia could pave the way for Riyadh to develop nuclear weapons, which the Saudi crown prince has said he would do if Iran does so first. And it could open the door for the U.A.E. to seek similar approval.

�Israel can�t agree to uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia, because it endangers its national security,� Yair Lapid, the Israeli opposition leader, told Israel�s Channel 12 last month. �It would harm our campaign against Iran. It would lead to a regional nuclear-arms race.�

The idea is also drawing opposition in Washington, where groups such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are mounting campaigns to derail any deal that allows Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium.

Dubowitz said the U.S. has to consider the prospect that Saudi Arabia could one day be ruled by hostile leaders who could seize control of U.S.-run, uranium-enrichment facilities in the kingdom that could be used to make a nuclear weapon.

�We�re one bullet away from a disaster in Saudi Arabia,� he said. �What happens if, God forbid, a radical Islamist leader takes control?�

Iran�s nuclear program has been a target of U.S. and Israeli sabotage campaigns meant to hamper Tehran�s ability to produce a nuclear weapon.
Brian Katulis, vice president of policy at the Middle East Institute think tank in Washington, said the idea is worth exploring.

�The concerns of a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East are very serious and real, indeed,� he said. �The question is whether the U.S. sitting on the sidelines, crossing its arms and scolding countries in the region for pursuing civilian nuclear energy is a more effective strategy than starting a discussion that aims to build trust and confidence among key actors in the region like Israel and Saudi Arabia.�

Katulis said, �The risk of some hostile leader getting these capacities is one we�ve seen and managed in a number of places around the world, including Pakistan.�
�It�s not an ideal situation in those instances,� he said, �but the risks can be managed.�

Yoel Guzansky, a former Israeli national-security official who now serves as a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said a deal that allows uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia would represent a stunning victory for Mohammed, who Biden vowed to treat as a pariah when he came into office because of the country�s record on human rights, including the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul by a Saudi hit team.

�From a pariah state two years ago to a nuclear-capable state?� he said. �This is remarkable.�

Guzansky said any concession that could pave the way for Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons might not be worth the cost.

�Perhaps the price of peace here is too high,� he said. �Certainly for Israel.�

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Sep 21, 2023

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:43

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

https://twitter.com/RepEscobar/status/1704884210790482297

Another failure brought to you by Speaker Kevin McCarthy. So bad that his personal spokesman is even admitting it
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1704880116319285365

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

=

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1704869367693877567

Why does KSA want nuclear power so bad? Perhaps the country that did 9/11 might have ulterior motives for developing state capacity for uranium enrichment.

https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1704828718139802023

Probably wouldn't say that in negotiations involving my sincere commitment to only use US -given nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes, but I'm not an iron-fisted despot.

quote:

Experts say there might be safeguards that could be put in place to remotely shut down an enrichment facility�from a formal remote shutdown mechanism to systems that speed up the centrifuges to the point where they break. However, there is no foolproof system for shutting down a facility remotely that can�t be tampered with and potentially blocked by those who physically control the location, say nuclear experts.

Yeah no poo poo

zoux fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Sep 21, 2023

# ? Sep 21, 2023 16:55

The Lord of Hats: Aug 22, 2010; Hello, yes! Is being very good day for posting, no?

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/RepEscobar/status/1704884210790482297

Another failure brought to you by Speaker Kevin McCarthy. So bad that his personal spokesman is even admitting it
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1704880116319285365

This isn�t surprising, really. The only thing keeping McCarthy on the job is that it�s too toxic for anyone to want to touch, but too important for them to allow anyone else to have it.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:09

Randalor: Sep 4, 2011

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/RepEscobar/status/1704884210790482297

Another failure brought to you by Speaker Kevin McCarthy. So bad that his personal spokesman is even admitting it
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1704880116319285365

So we're all in agreement at this point that McCarthy just has a humiliation kink, right?

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:10

Kale: May 14, 2010

Governing isnt the goal, owning the libs, defending Trump and engaging in culture wars is.

Guessing the six are Jordan, Gaetz, Green, Boeburt, Gosar and Biggs.

Kale fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Sep 21, 2023

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:12

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Kale posted:

Governing isnt the goal, owning the libs, defending Trump and engaging in culture wars is.

Well he ain't doing much of that either. I certainly don't feel owned.

The Lord of Hats posted:

This isn�t surprising, really. The only thing keeping McCarthy on the job is that it�s too toxic for anyone to want to touch, but too important for them to allow anyone else to have it.

It's gonna be real funny when they vacate the chair, have 3 weeks of pointless votes, and end up re-electing McCarthy speaker.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:12

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Kale posted:

Governing isnt the goal, owning the libs, defending Trump and engaging in culture wars is.

For some, but if it's a tradeoff between that and shoveling money to defense contractors a lot of powerful people are going to be asking difficult questions

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:13

Kale: May 14, 2010

zoux posted:

Well he ain't doing much of that either. I certainly don't feel owned.

It's gonna be real funny when they vacate the chair, have 3 weeks of pointless votes, and end up re-electing McCarthy speaker.

No you see its not about actually owning someone, its claiming you have for your crazy angry redneck voters.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:15

Twincityhacker: Feb 18, 2011

I see that Saudi Arabia has dropped the defence agreement where the US would come to the aid of Saudi Arabia if attacked.

As for the nuclear poo poo, Saudi Arabia keeps going "hmmm, well, if you don't want to give us the tech we can just get it from China!"

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:23

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1704891328243339683

Oh I didn't realize this was Kevin McCarthy's very first day on Capitol Hill, he should look up "The Tea Party" wikipedia page

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:36

Shooting Blanks: Jun 6, 2007; Real bullets mess up how cool this thing looks.

-Blade

Twincityhacker posted:

I see that Saudi Arabia has dropped the defence agreement where the US would come to the aid of Saudi Arabia if attacked.

As for the nuclear poo poo, Saudi Arabia keeps going "hmmm, well, if you don't want to give us the tech we can just get it from China!"

Has China actually transferred nuclear weapons technology to any other country in recent memory? I actually don't know the answer to this - I know they have a public no first use policy and they joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty a bit late, but had they been involved with proliferation prior to that?

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:51

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Shooting Blanks posted:

Has China actually transferred nuclear weapons technology to any other country in recent memory? I actually don't know the answer to this - I know they have a public no first use policy and they joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty a bit late, but had they been involved with proliferation prior to that?

Some people have historically made hay about the possibility of China transferring various bits of equipment or technology to North Korea but largely there isn't any evidence to support it beyond coincidences.

e:

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

China provided Pakistan with the tech and uranium it used to build its nukes.

I did a quick google/wikidive but as far as I can tell this is something the DoD/US DoS claims but at a glance there doesn't seem to be any evidence beyond their say so?

Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Sep 21, 2023

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:53

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Shooting Blanks posted:

Has China actually transferred nuclear weapons technology to any other country in recent memory? I actually don't know the answer to this - I know they have a public no first use policy and they joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty a bit late, but had they been involved with proliferation prior to that?

China provided Pakistan with the tech and uranium it used to build its nukes.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 17:53

Independence: Jul 12, 2006; The Wriggler

Shooting Blanks posted:

Has China actually transferred nuclear weapons technology to any other country in recent memory? I actually don't know the answer to this - I know they have a public no first use policy and they joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty a bit late, but had they been involved with proliferation prior to that?

I think the Saudis would go to the Pakistanis for nuke help. They already have extensive ties.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:05

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Independence posted:

I think the Saudis would go to the Pakistanis for nuke help. They already have extensive ties.

The US can give technology, defesne ties, keep business channels open to let them purchase companies and diversify, as well as give coverage again UN probes and measures, pitiful as those are.

Pakistan can give some tech help while also souring relations with both the US and China.

It's an easy decision to make.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:10

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Owling Howl posted:

The Silver Fox experiment may interest you.

It's a pretty interesting experiment that has been ongoing for 60+ years with some insights into the domestication and selective breeding process.

It's interesting to me that you didn't refer to the more relevant part of the experiment, the group of foxes they explicitly bred for increased aggression.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:12

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

This is how you win elections.

You create (and repeat) a powerful message: https://reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/s/ifMJpmPV9h

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:14

ninjahedgehog: Feb 17, 2011; It's time to kick the tires and light the fires, Big Bird.

zoux posted:

Why does KSA want nuclear power so bad? Perhaps the country that did 9/11 might have ulterior motives for developing state capacity for uranium enrichment.

Unlike our own domestic anti-democratic woman-hating war crimes enthusiasts, the Saudis actually get that the oil won't be there forever and they've spent the past 15 years or so diversifying like crazy -- including buying up shares in Disney, Meta, EA, and owning the entire PGA tour and the Newcastle United soccer team.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:14

Shooting Blanks: Jun 6, 2007; Real bullets mess up how cool this thing looks.

-Blade

ninjahedgehog posted:

Unlike our own domestic anti-democratic woman-hating war crimes enthusiasts, the Saudis actually get that the oil won't be there forever and they've spent the past 15 years or so diversifying like crazy -- including buying up shares in Disney, Meta, EA, and owning the entire PGA tour and the Newcastle United soccer team.

They're also investing heavily in solar energy, with the same realization in mind.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:26

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Shooting Blanks posted:

They're also investing heavily in solar energy, with the same realization in mind.

It's kinda fun that they are sitting on huge energy reserves below ground, and when that runs out or stops making money, they're also sitting on a huge desert they can fill with solar panels(yes I'm aware that's also disruptive towards the ecosystem)

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:28

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

zoux posted:

Why does KSA want nuclear power so bad? Perhaps the country that did 9/11 might have ulterior motives for developing state capacity for uranium enrichment.

https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1704828718139802023

Probably wouldn't say that in negotiations involving my sincere commitment to only use US -given nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes, but I'm not an iron-fisted despot.

Yeah no poo poo

Maybe they realize that burning fossil fuels is not a great thing and are looking for alternatives?

If the Saudis wanted nuclear weapons and didn't care about political consequences they'd get them from Pakistan. I thought the Saudi funding of the Pakistani nuclear program was an open secret.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:35

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

zoux posted:

Why does KSA want nuclear power so bad? Perhaps the country that did 9/11 might have ulterior motives for developing state capacity for uranium enrichment.

The same reason Iran does: the less oil they have to use for power domestically, the more oil they can sell.

Also, that way they're not completely hosed when the oil starts to run low or the rest of the world goes to non-fossil power.

Also, given that one significant power in the region already has nuclear weapons and another one is working to develop them, they'd like to at least have a credible path to nuclear weapons themselves.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:35

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

DeadlyMuffin posted:

If the Saudis wanted nuclear weapons and didn't care about political consequences they'd get them from Pakistan. I thought the Saudi funding of the Pakistani nuclear program was an open secret.

It is, as far as I know. It's widely presumed that the quid pro quo was the Saudis have first call on nukes from Pakistan if they ever decide they want some.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:39

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Maybe they realize that burning fossil fuels is not a great thing and are looking for alternatives?

Well, yes, but only in terms of how much revenue it'll bring in in the future, not because it's causing an environmental catastrophe. If the rest of the world weren't increasingly looking for ways out of oil, they'd still be all-in on it

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:39

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Well I do not want the Saudis to have nukes. IMO.

Speaking of, the Atlantic has an article jerking off Mark Milley for not doing an actual coup at the behest of Trump, and it's got some real interesting details as pertains to US nuclear weapons doctrine.

quote:

I described to Milley a specific worry I�d had, illustrated most vividly by one of the more irrational public statements Trump made as president. On January 2, 2018, Trump tweeted: �North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the �Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.� Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!�

This tweet did not initiate a fatal escalatory cycle, but with it Trump created conditions that easily could have, as he did at several other moments during his presidency. Standing beside the missile in the silo, I expressed my concern about this to Milley.

�Wasn�t going to happen,� he responded.

�You�re not in the chain of command,� I noted. The chairman is an adviser to the president, not a field commander.

�True,� he answered. �The chain of command runs from the president to the secretary of defense to that guy,� he said, pointing to [Adm. Charles Richard, then head of Stratcom], who had moved to the other side of the catwalk. �We�ve got excellent professionals throughout the system.� He then said, �Nancy Pelosi was worried about this. I told her she didn�t have to worry, that we have systems in place.� By this, he meant that the system is built to resist the efforts of rogue actors.

While that may be true, this is the first time I've ever heard of senior military leadership even allude to the possibility that total control of the US nuclear arsenal wasn't under the sole control of the president.

quote:

I found Milley�s confidence only somewhat reassuring. The American president is a nuclear monarch, invested with uni�lateral authority to release weapons that could destroy the planet many times over.

I mentioned to Milley a conversation I�d had with James Mattis when he was the secretary of defense. I had told Mattis, only half-joking, that I was happy he was a physically fit Marine. If it ever came to it, I said, he could forcibly wrest the nuclear football�the briefcase containing, among other things, the authentication codes needed to order a nuclear strike�from the president. Mattis, a wry man, smiled and said that I was failing to take into account the mission of the Secret Service.

When I mentioned to Milley my view that Trump was mentally and morally unequipped to make decisions concerning war and peace, he would say only, �The president alone decides to launch nuclear weapons, but he doesn�t launch them alone.� He then repeated the sentence.

He has also said in private settings, more colloquially, �The president can�t wake up in the middle of the night and decide to push a button. One reason for this is that there�s no button to push.�

Good thing Michael Flynn wasn't chairman of the JCS. The rest of the article is various anecdotes about how bad and fake Trump was, here's some selections:

quote:

Kelly escorted Milley to the Oval Office. Milley saluted Trump and sat across from the president, who was seated at the Resolute Desk.

�You�re here because I�m interviewing you for the job of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,� Trump said. �What do you think of that?�

Milley responded: �I�ll do whatever you ask me to do.� At which point, Trump turned to Kelly and said, �What�s that other job Mattis wants him to do? Something in Europe?�

Kelly answered, �That�s SACEUR, the supreme allied commander in Europe.�

Trump asked, �What does that guy do?�

�That�s the person who commands U.S. forces in Europe,� Kelly said.

�Which is the better job?� Trump asked.

Kelly answered that the chairmanship is the better job. Trump offered Milley the role. The business of the meeting done, the conversation then veered in many different directions. But at one point Trump returned to the job offer, saying to Milley, �Mattis says you�re soft on transgenders. Are you soft on transgenders?�

Milley responded, �I�m not soft on transgender or hard on transgender. I�m about standards in the U.S. military, about who is qualified to serve in the U.S. military. I don�t care who you sleep with or what you are.�

The offer stood.

quote:

It would be nearly a year before Dunford retired and Milley assumed the role. At his welcome ceremony at Joint Base Myer�Henderson Hall, across the Potomac River from the capital, Milley gained an early, and disturbing, insight into Trump�s attitude toward soldiers. Milley had chosen a severely wounded Army captain, Luis Avila, to sing �God Bless America.� Avila, who had completed five combat tours, had lost a leg in an IED attack in Afghanistan, and had suffered two heart attacks, two strokes, and brain damage as a result of his injuries. To Milley, and to four-star generals across the Army, Avila and his wife, Claudia, represented the heroism, sacrifice, and dignity of wounded soldiers.

It had rained that day, and the ground was soft; at one point Avila�s wheelchair threatened to topple over. Milley�s wife, Holly�anne, ran to help Avila, as did Vice President Mike Pence. After Avila�s performance, Trump walked over to congratulate him, but then said to Milley, within earshot of several witnesses, �Why do you bring people like that here? No one wants to see that, the wounded.� Never let Avila appear in public again, Trump told Milley. (Recently, Milley invited Avila to sing at his retirement ceremony.)

Incidentally:

quote:

This particular intervention was onerous for the Navy, because by tradition only a commanding officer or a group of SEALs on a Trident Review Board are meant to decide if one of their own is unworthy of being a SEAL. Late one night, on Air Force One, Milley tried to convince Trump that his intrusion was damaging Navy morale. They were flying from Washington to Dover Air Force Base, in Delaware, to attend a �dignified transfer,� the repatriation ceremony for fallen service members.

�Mr. President,� Milley said, �you have to understand that the SEALs are a tribe within a larger tribe, the Navy. And it�s up to them to figure out what to do with Gallagher. You don�t want to intervene. This is up to the tribe. They have their own rules that they follow.�

Trump called Gallagher a hero and said he didn�t understand why he was being punished.

�Because he slit the throat of a wounded prisoner,� Milley said.

�The guy was going to die anyway,� Trump said.

Milley answered, �Mr. President, we have military ethics and laws about what happens in battle. We can�t do that kind of thing. It�s a war crime.� Trump answered that he didn�t understand �the big deal.� He went on, �You guys��meaning combat soldiers��are all just killers. What�s the difference?�

Now this is obviously a hand job for Milley, totally takes his side on the Layfaette Square incident and doesn't really challenge the narrative that serves Milley. It may be true, I suspect it's more complicated than that, but I will always respect him for this.

quote:

The desire on the part of Trump and his loyalists to utilize the Insurrection Act was unabating. Stephen Miller, the Trump adviser whom Milley is said to have called �Rasputin,� was vociferous on this point. Less than a week after George Floyd was murdered, Miller told Trump in an Oval Office meeting, �Mr. President, they are burning America down. Antifa, Black Lives Matter�they�re burning it down. You have an insurrection on your hands. Barbarians are at the gate.�

According to Woodward and Costa in Peril, Milley responded, �Shut the gently caress up, Steve.� Then he turned to Trump. �Mr. President, they are not burning it down.�

# ? Sep 21, 2023 18:58

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Jaxyon posted:

It's kinda fun that they are sitting on huge energy reserves below ground, and when that runs out or stops making money, they're also sitting on a huge desert they can fill with solar panels(yes I'm aware that's also disruptive towards the ecosystem)

By the time those oil reserves have been used, the region will be so hot that they are living in a barren desert.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 19:00

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

zoux posted:

While that may be true, this is the first time I've ever heard of senior military leadership even allude to the possibility that total control of the US nuclear arsenal wasn't under the sole control of the president.

There's always the widely believed fact that Kissinger instructed the Joint Chiefs to come to him first if Nixon ever gave a launch order, but yeah, no one has never admitted to this on the record

# ? Sep 21, 2023 19:05

Twincityhacker: Feb 18, 2011

Oh gently caress, I meant Saudi Arabia buying nuclear power tech from China not nuclear weapon tech. I don't think nuclear power tech is under non-prolfieration treaties?

Sorry, my brain is mush.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 19:06

shimmy shimmy: Nov 13, 2020

quote:

Milley answered, “Mr. President, we have military ethics and laws about what happens in battle. We can’t do that kind of thing. It’s a war crime.” Trump answered that he didn’t understand “the big deal.” He went on, “You guys”—meaning combat soldiers—“are all just killers. What’s the difference?”

I mean, he's right.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 19:11

selec: Sep 6, 2003

zoux posted:

Well I do not want the Saudis to have nukes. IMO.

Speaking of, the Atlantic has an article jerking off Mark Milley for not doing an actual coup at the behest of Trump, and it's got some real interesting details as pertains to US nuclear weapons doctrine.

While that may be true, this is the first time I've ever heard of senior military leadership even allude to the possibility that total control of the US nuclear arsenal wasn't under the sole control of the president.

Good thing Michael Flynn wasn't chairman of the JCS. The rest of the article is various anecdotes about how bad and fake Trump was, here's some selections:

Incidentally:

Now this is obviously a hand job for Milley, totally takes his side on the Layfaette Square incident and doesn't really challenge the narrative that serves Milley. It may be true, I suspect it's more complicated than that, but I will always respect him for this.

o7

This is the second public Republican handjob I�ve had to see this week.

The man is a stooge, nobody with a shred of dignity would�ve worked in a position appointed by Trump. But even stooges deserve their puff pieces, I guess.

# ? Sep 21, 2023 19:15

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

zoux posted:

Well I do not want the Saudis to have nukes. IMO.

Speaking of, the Atlantic has an article jerking off Mark Milley for not doing an actual coup at the behest of Trump, and it's got some real interesting details as pertains to US nuclear weapons doctrine.

While that may be true, this is the first time I've ever heard of senior military leadership even allude to the possibility that total control of the US nuclear arsenal wasn't under the sole control of the president.

Good thing Michael Flynn wasn't chairman of the JCS. The rest of the article is various anecdotes about how bad and fake Trump was, here's some selections:

Incidentally:

Now this is obviously a hand job for Milley, totally takes his side on the Layfaette Square incident and doesn't really challenge the narrative that serves Milley. It may be true, I suspect it's more complicated than that, but I will always respect him for this.

o7

USCE Fall: Trump asked, "Are you soft on transgenders?� Milley responded, �I�m not soft on transgender or hard on transgender."

# ? Sep 21, 2023 19:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 19:51

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

VideoGameVet posted:

This is how you win elections.

You create (and repeat) a powerful message: https://reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/s/ifMJpmPV9h

Thanks for sharing this. It's a hell of an ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHSXrtv_1RI

# ? Sep 21, 2023 19:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »