McCarthy opens impeachment inquiry

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Bad comparison is bad, and you should feel bad.

What's wrong with it?

Seems like quite an apt comparison to me.

Which explains why it received no response.

Every time I leave for a few days people think I'm ignoring a post. One day they'll learn to check "last time he logged on".




Nah.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?

Because failure to support South Elbonia against North Elbonian aggression will lead to a more dangerous and less free world in which the US will be both poorer and at greater risk.

You see a mugger attack someone weaker than themselves. You are stronger than either party. Why wouldn't you defend the victim against the attacker?

Any party that initiates violence against another party is a risk to the entire community, and as a member of that community you have many good reasons to intervene, not least your own selfish desire to live in a world where you are less likely to be attacked. This is true of the community of nations just as it is of your own local community of individuals.

I'm astonished that anyone could reach adulthood without understanding this.

With a 52 year track record on foreign policy showing the LP has been right every single time on foreign intervention, and during that same 50 years the Demopublican war party was wrong every single time, your answer is certain to be right.

1) 52 years sounds very much like cherry picking.

2) You are assuming that the right answer in each case was not to intervene.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?

Because failure to support South Elbonia against North Elbonian aggression will lead to a more dangerous and less free world in which the US will be both poorer and at greater risk.

You see a mugger attack someone weaker than themselves. You are stronger than either party. Why wouldn't you defend the victim against the attacker?

Any party that initiates violence against another party is a risk to the entire community, and as a member of that community you have many good reasons to intervene, not least your own selfish desire to live in a world where you are less likely to be attacked. This is true of the community of nations just as it is of your own local community of individuals.

I'm astonished that anyone could reach adulthood without understanding this.

With a 52 year track record on foreign policy showing the LP has been right every single time on foreign intervention, and during that same 50 years the Demopublican war party was wrong every single time, your answer is certain to be right.

1) 52 years sounds very much like cherry picking.

2) You are assuming that the right answer in each case was not to intervene.

1) 52 years ago the Libertarian Party was founded. Before that they issued very few press releases or position papers.

2) The result of each intervention during that 52 years was that each intervention turned out to be a mistake that made the situation worse. The only exception is Current War, which is obviously completely different from Previous War.

 

[bilby]

The result of each intervention during that 52 years was that each intervention turned out to be a mistake that made the situation worse.

How do you know? Do you have access to parallel dimensions in which decisions not made are played out so that you can observe the effects of counterfactuals?

How do you know that the absence of one or more of those interventions wouldn't have been far worse than what actually occurred?

Given that for most of that time, global nuclear armageddon was a real possibility, it would seem that there's plenty of scope for worse outcomes than what we actually got; Assuming better ones, as the consequence of your alternative plan that was never enacted, is unwarranted.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

 

[Politesse]

Didn’t those same Republicans say a president is immune from criminal prosecution???

I think that they think that applies only to tRunp because he was president and according to their crazy "thinking", should still be president. Biden of course is illegitimate by their treasonous thinking.

Though they do nothing substantial about it. Traitors and cowards, a winning combination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?

Because failure to support South Elbonia against North Elbonian aggression will lead to a more dangerous and less free world in which the US will be both poorer and at greater risk.

You see a mugger attack someone weaker than themselves. You are stronger than either party. Why wouldn't you defend the victim against the attacker?

Any party that initiates violence against another party is a risk to the entire community, and as a member of that community you have many good reasons to intervene, not least your own selfish desire to live in a world where you are less likely to be attacked. This is true of the community of nations just as it is of your own local community of individuals.

I'm astonished that anyone could reach adulthood without understanding this.

With a 52 year track record on foreign policy showing the LP has been right every single time on foreign intervention, and during that same 50 years the Demopublican war party was wrong every single time, your answer is certain to be right.

Ah yes. It is so easy to be right for 52 years, when you don't actually make any of the choices. *slow clap*

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"Nyah nyah you're unpopular".

Great response Jimmy. Clearly it doesn't matter if we're right if nobody likes us.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Nyah nyah you're unpopular".

Unpopular? I should report that post for being such a terrible misquote. I didn't say they were unpopular. I said they weren't ever responsible for any the choices. They didn't even have a seat in the room.

So 52 years of being correct? Or is it 52 years of nothing to show for it?

 

[scombrid]

Nothing to show for it? RvW overturned. Equal rights amendment never ratified. Keeping “naughty” books out of Florida schools. Vaccine opposition at an all time high. They’ve some domestic success. Just haven’t gotten the isolationism or monetary policy wins.

 

[bilby]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

The US intervened, the US made the situation different.

Whether or not it was worse could only be known if we know how bad it would have been without US intervention.

Try addressing reality instead of your unfounded belief that isolationism is an unalloyed good.

What you write has implications. Whether or not you are sensible enough to consider them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So 52 years of being correct? Or is it 52 years of nothing to show for it?

52 years of having every foreign policy prediction end up being borne out by facts. You don't need to be in office to be right.

52 years of those in office fucking things up. Being in office doesn't protect them from being wrong.

Doesn't matter. We're not popular enough to win elections, so therefore we can't be right.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

The US intervened, the US made the situation different.

Whether or not it was worse could only be known if we know how bad it would have been without US intervention.

We can assess "this is how it was before the US intervened" and "this is how it was after the US intervened" and figure out if one of them is worse than the others. Therefore we can determine that things are worse after intervention, and do so without any access to alternate realities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So 52 years of being correct? Or is it 52 years of nothing to show for it?

52 years of having every foreign policy prediction end up being borne out by facts.

Anyone that thinks they are right 100% of the time should be listened to 0% of the time.

You don't need to be in office to be right.

No, but when in office and being held responsible for actions changes the calculus substantially. Such as people becoming Speaker of the House and changing their tune on Government shutdowns.

It is a lot easier to hold positions that you aren't actually held responsible for.

52 years of those in office fucking things up. Being in office doesn't protect them from being wrong.

Doesn't matter. We're not popular enough to win elections, so therefore we can't be right.

You don't need to reply to my quotes if you just want to reply to strawman arguments.

You can just do something like:

Libertarians are never right.

That isn't true.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is much difference between "thinks they are right 100% of the time" and "borne out by facts". It is the same difference (in the same order) as Jimmy Higgins and Jason Harvestdancer.

 

[Politesse]

There is much difference between "thinks they are right 100% of the time" and "borne out by facts". It is the same difference (in the same order) as Jimmy Higgins and Jason Harvestdancer.

I always get the two of you confused, until I suddenly realize that the post is somewhat coherent.

 

[bilby]

The US intervened, the US made the situation worse. That does not require access to alternate dimensions, and that does not mean it couldn't have been even worse.

Try addressing what I wrote instead of wild claims that I didn't write.

The US intervened, the US made the situation different.

Whether or not it was worse could only be known if we know how bad it would have been without US intervention.

We can assess "this is how it was before the US intervened" and "this is how it was after the US intervened" and figure out if one of them is worse than the others. Therefore we can determine that things are worse after intervention, and do so without any access to alternate realities.

Sure. But post hoc, ergo propter hoc is logically fallacious.

Interventions happen for reasons. They exist only because someone believes (rightly or wrongly) that the situation will get worse if no intervention occurs.

Given a situation that is expected to deteriorate without intervention, the observation that it deteriorated despite intervention is not evidence that the intervention was the wrong approach. It's equally reasonable to conclude that the intervention was merely insufficient.

"We intervened, and things got worse", could imply that the intervention made things worse; Or that the intervention prevented things from becoming even worser.

The real world rarely presents dichotomies; "Worse" isn't an absolute, and something that is worse than before, can easily be better than it might have been.

 

[Patooka]

Or that the intervention prevented things from becoming even worser.

Just so we're clear, I agree with everything you've said. But it's "even more worse".

 

[laughing dog]

So 52 years of being correct? Or is it 52 years of nothing to show for it?

52 years of having every foreign policy prediction end up being borne out by facts.

It is a lot easier to hold positions that you aren't actually held responsible

Very true. Which is why Libertarians ^TM are always "right" because they are not in a position to ever be held responsible.

 

[bilby]

Or that the intervention prevented things from becoming even worser.

Just so we're clear, I agree with everything you've said. But it's "even more worse".

Yeah, sorry. My grammar is the worstest.