koods said:

I do think Hegseth impeachment could be viable in the next congress. Would only have to flip 10 GOP senators. (Seven republican senators voted to convict Trump in 2021, so ten isn’t a huge stretch)

---

dinosaurs said:

koods said:

I do think Hegseth impeachment could be viable in the next congress. Would only have to flip 10 GOP senators. (Seven republican senators voted to convict Trump in 2021, so ten isn’t a huge stretch)

---

it would be and likely will be.  I cant see dems leaving that asshole in place, and I wouldnt support any that did.

one thing I forgot to mention earlier is that even if this performative impeachment succeeded, it would just make way for trump to appoint someone even worse, and they would be guaranteed to be confirmed by this (still) republican-majority senate.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

AlChemicalResearch said:

I mean the tactic is literally called scorched earth tactics. I'm sure if I spent some time doing some research I could find it being using in over 25% of wars that have happened on this planet.

---

Really shootin from the hip with this one!

---

gww said:

You are doing what you always do and conflating the original thing you responded to and trying to put it in a different light.  Hitler was not covering a retreat or taking resources from invaders/enemies to save his german citizens.  He was punishing everyone cause they did not fight hard enough.  If he was not the only one in history doesn't mean it was not a jim jones move from a maniac. It is the reason not to follow maniacs thinking they will care for you.

---

AlChemicalResearch said:

gww said:

You are doing what you always do and conflating the original thing you responded to and trying to put it in a different light.  Hitler was not covering a retreat or taking resources from invaders/enemies to save his german citizens.  He was punishing everyone cause they did not fight hard enough.  If he was not the only one in history doesn't mean it was not a jim jones move from a maniac. It is the reason not to follow maniacs thinking they will care for you.

---

Agreed. Hitler and the Nazis did not flee to South America. They were not fleeing the Red Army fearing retribution for the shit they did to the Russians. There was no concerted effort to propagandize everything the Germans and Nazis did post WW2

---

gww said:

AlChemicalResearch said:

gww said:

You are doing what you always do and conflating the original thing you responded to and trying to put it in a different light.  Hitler was not covering a retreat or taking resources from invaders/enemies to save his german citizens.  He was punishing everyone cause they did not fight hard enough.  If he was not the only one in history doesn't mean it was not a jim jones move from a maniac. It is the reason not to follow maniacs thinking they will care for you.

---

Agreed. Hitler and the Nazis did not flee to South America. They were not fleeing the Red Army fearing retribution for the shit they did to the Russians. There was no concerted effort to propagandize everything the Germans and Nazis did post WW2

---

So, are you trying to defend the nazi and say all the bad stuff said about them is just propaganda by the winners?

---

Enlil said:

I wasn't even contemplating the welsh law.  I was reading two separate hypotheticals that you asked me to differentiate from each other.  I did that. I figured that you intentionally separated it from the context in order to make some kind of philosophical point about the general propriety. This was partially because you specifically honed in on my words of general philosophy and not at all on anything to do with the welsh law.

I was talking about general concepts of freedom of speech and governmental authority to regulate it.  If you were talking about a specific law, that wasn't clear.  Indeed it still isn't.  Your "quote" purporting to be the Welsh law, was taken from where, exactly? It's certainly not from the Welsh criminal code because it hasn't been written yet.  It's a snippet from the act authorizing the code be written, but not a complete one. 

So what did you want me to do, exactly?  Take your hypothetical, assume that you were talking about the welsh law that hasn't yet been written, then consult an oracle to determine the actual text and contours of the law that will be written, and then compare that to your hypothetical that loosely resembles laws prohibiting perjury?

If that was your intention, I missed it.  If I hadn't missed it, I would have declined to compare an unknown to an arbitrary hypothetical anyway.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

El Sayed absolutely nailed it, here. Chuck Schumer has got to fuckin GO!

---