I know you weren't saying default, I just didn't bother quoting the other person in the thread who did say that.

It would be an interesting experiment (?) to see how a default would play out. But yeah, what idiot would purposely want a default.

It would be a horrible experiment to see how a default would play out.

This is true too. I'd use globally catastrophic.

I get what you are saying. There's a "morbid curiosity."

FWIW, I was considering how Biden might be thinking about this.

He was willing to take the heat of withdrawing from Afghanistan that neither Obama nor Trump was willing to take. He seems able to do what he considers to be the right thing at some political cost.

So I wonder if the thinking might go like this--pretty much cave to the GOP to get an extension past the 2024 election (which isn't quite as bad as it seems b/c it is mostly stuff that would be on the table in September anyway).

Then, if he gets re-elected, pre-emptively declare the 14th Amendment renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional and let those chips fall where they may.

He'd take a political hit for that, but he's not running for reelection at that point, and it's hard to imagine that the GOP would get much milage running in 2028 against a Dem with the message of "4 years ago, another person got rid of the debt ceiling"

Not sure I support below idea. But I've not thought of it before and it's kinda appealing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/how-...ebt-limit.html

Okay, is it about time for a 2024 Election thread?

DeSantis vs Trump should be very entertaining.

Ron DeSantis expected to enter 2024 presidential race next week | CNN Politics

Entertaining isn't the word I'd use, but I suppose a dedicated place for speculating early is reasonable since we're starting to get more candidates in.

According to this report, he just kept getting the benefit of the doubt.

Accused Pentagon leaker was warned repeatedly about his mishandling of classified documents, prosecutors say | CNN Politics


If this reporting turns out to be true, it looks like he received at maximum two letters of counseling for the three incidents. A letter of counseling is basically the lowest level of formal discipline. Think of a soccer ref making a mental note that a player has made multiple fouls and the next foul will result in a yellow card. I think Rainmaker worked intel so maybe he can give his opinion. I contacted a few current and former military colleagues and asked what they thought the punishment would be if someone did the first one alone. The consensus which I agree with was an Article 15(think court-martial without the court) and more than likely a reduction in rank. The combo of all three incidents may result in possible jail time being added.

The idea that his superiors just told him to cease and desist but still were sending him to classified briefings is insulting. They also need to be named and face jail time.

The first would have been an investigation and likely loss of clearance, or at the very least a suspension of clearance where I was stationed and worked (at a NSA site). A field or company grade article 15 would be a given. it would really come down to the command, but I'd say most likely a field grade which is the more severe of the two.

If he somehow survived the first with his clearance then the 2nd would 100% be another article 15, suspension of clearance, and separation from service (he would be kicked out).

This is pretty unfathomable to me. As I mentioned above, I worked at a NSA site for a few years but I also worked at a non-NSA military job handling classified materials on a daily basis so I've seen both a more civilian based environment for handling classified materials along with a 100% military environment. Both places took these things incredibly seriously. I can't even imagine standing in front of our commander or 1SG trying to explain this happening once.

DeSantis will get trounced by Trump. The shit he is doing in Florida is fucking draconian to the point even Trump will use it against him. People went nuts on the DeSantis train after his landslide win but that had way more to do with his opponent. Look what just happened in Jacksonville. DeSantis IMO has peaked, or maybe has a shot at a senate seat but that is it. Zero chance at the presidency.

I get his problem in terms of timing, he's soon done as Governor and the two GOP Senators are young in terms of the Senate. In that sense, it probably is close to now or never, but he's risking his future going after Trump, IMO. He's shown no willingness to really go at Trump nor an ability to defend Trump's attacks. Add to that his personal quirks, I mean look at him laugh, and I think there's a very high likelihood that Trump will end his ambitions the same way he did Little Marco.

Wasn't he Air Force? They were always the weirdest and had a certain target demo they propped up (white Christian nationalists). Guessing that's why he got more leeway than anyone else would.

Most of the military folks I came across in Bahrain were cool but the Air Force people were really fucking weird and acted like they were in a cult.

Arguably the biggest strength the US has, even more than its military, is being the reserve currency of the world. Middle East wars have been started over keeping this the case and Russia and China are trying to unravel some of it now because of how the sanctions are hitting the former and to give strength to the latter. It will eventually not be the case. The Euro kindof gained some traction but some of that got walked back during their defaults (Greece, Spain, etc). I suspect a US default would hasten people moving away from the dollar. I don't mean like it would happen the next day. It would just significantly accelerate a change that's already taking place.



SI

It would, but it might be wake up call to be cognizant of who you vote for. At some point the debt ceiling has to stop being used as an extortion attempt. You have to say "no, we aren't giving in to these insane demands and if we default, it's on you".

This isn't a tiny demographic. Over half the country voted for these people. Fuck around and find out.

Here's who owns U.S. debt:



The "Fed and gov't accounts" section is mostly social security trusts.

So, as a thought exercise, imagine the government decides to default on tranches of debt. Which of those groups are you OK with defaulting on, and imagine the knock-on effects.

Like, maybe you're OK with defaulting on foreign debt. Fine. But now lots of other countries start to plunge into default. Congrats, you've kicked off a global recession.

Or maybe you hate insurance companies. Fine, a whole bunch go bankrupt, then a lot of claims don't get paid out, then a lot of people and other companies go bankrupt. Congrats, you've caused a recession.

And so on and so on.

Not the point, I know, but I wonder who "other" is.

Not the same article as the graphic but below hints at the "other". Individuals, estates, businesses etc.

China & Japan are the countries that own the most.

Good to see Britney Gringer standing up for the national anthem this year.

It would have been interesting to see the back-and-forth arguments, recriminations etc. If she hadn't, it'd only up tensions which I don't think we needed, so good for her in compromising.

https://sports.yahoo.com/brittney-gr...032531066.html

Wondering whatever happened to arms merchant Viktor Blout?

Other than for telling Trump to "seek refuge" in Russia, he's been busy painting. So on the surface, doesn't seem to have been a bad trade.

Viktor Blout is showing his artwork in Moscow | Fortune'

IMO It is the most interesting if there is no back and forth arguments, recriminations, if there are no tension built up or if the discussions are limited to just her standing for the anthem especially when you read her reasons for why she is actually standing now.

I'm sure we see things differently, but little doubt to me that if she wasn't "rescued" by the US government, she would be continuing with her not standing, staying in locker room silent protest.

The press release is carefully worded and is like a "sorry but not really sorry" or more accurately "not really sorry but have to say something". But good enough.

It's been a while now and I've not read anything about her publicly denying the MJ. I'm assuming this means she really wasn't framed by the Russians.

I am pretty sure she had the vape cartridge and knew she had it, but to your point, Griner has always come across to me as a very sincere person, so I don't think she has a hidden message. I think she is very appreciative and this is her way to express that.

Obviously it would be a complete PR nightmare had see gone back to not standing, but I still take her at her word.

I agree with the first part and the press release being good enough is the point for me. It is obvious to anyone who reads that statement that she has not changed her position from when she was kneeling to now that she is standing. In fact she has doubled down on her position. If she can hold the same exact position including supporting those that choose not to stand for the anthem, but stands for the anthem herself, that tells me that the value of standing for the anthem is not nearly as important as people were making it out to be. So what exactly was everyone mad about?

The other thing that is interesting is now that I know the reason BG is standing for the anthem, I would like to know why the other players are standing for the anthem to see if their reasons are as thoughtful and nuanced as her, whether I agree with them or not. I would hate to think everyone else is doing it just to not cause any waves or follow along like sheep.

So a verified blue check account on Twitter, Bloomberg Feed, posted that an explosion occurred at the Pentagon this morning, complete with picture. This is FALSE and apparantly likely was created by AI:


https://twitter.com/AndyBCampbell/st...54574644887558

Sportsdigs had that 2 weeks ago.

Sportsdigs was always ahead of its time :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...n-deal-states/

Quiet competency was one of the things I missed during Trump.

No one knows more about the Colorado River than Donald Trump.

He would have given nonsensical soundbites about water. And then the whole thing would have been derailed because three different grifters in his orbit were using the negotiations to try to score huge government payouts. And then the MAGA line would have been to blame it all on California liberals, which everyone would have bought hook line and sinker.

This is so depressingly accurate.

I know zip about Tim Scott but glad he's getting some serious $ for his campaign. Have to read more about his policies.

Currently still at "anyone but Trump" phase.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/22/larr...-campaign.html

Found something they can cut from the budget. Also some work for the DOJ if they can be bothered.




Well until he can admit America is a racist country I can't take him seriously.

Seems like if the goal is to beat Trump, Republicans should get behind one candidate. Every person like Scott who enters the race just makes it easier for Trump. It almost makes me wonder if the people putting money behind these candidates are Trump supporters. The whole "Third Way" group is basically setup to elect Trump.

Anyway, I don't know a ton about Scott outside of the fact it's always funny to me that both Senators from South Carolina are deeply in the closet. Like what are the odds?

or why can't like a ton of people enter the race and actually have a platform

so he's running a "Hillary" campaign then?

They can. But I think Republicans are in the Trump or no-Trump camp. If the no-Trump camp is split between 6 candidates, they'll never beat him. This is sort of what happened in 2016.

Scott entering the race is mostly nothing. Makes me think he's just looking for some national attention to angle for that VP spot. He's more or less Black Mike Pence. Or it's some money laundering operation because there is no one sane who thinks he stands a chance against Trump in a primary.

i guess my question is rhetorical....because there really is no answer other than people are dumb coorupt stupid ignorant greedy horrible ....stares blankly...

There is truth to this. There were a lot of people against Trump but they couldn't coalesce around any particular candidate. It's almost if the Republican anti-trumpers need their own primary before the general Republican primary.

I think Scott is mostly trying to get his name in the news in order to build some national gravitas in anticipation of a 2028 run. Or maybe he'll catch a lucky break such as Trump getting a criminal conviction.

Maybe it is the algorithm but I am really seeing a lot of variations from GOP accounts on Twitter, actual accounts, not dopes like Charile Kirk, all claiming some version of "if we default it is Joe Bidens fault." I am 100% sure the plan is default and blame it on him. This is the same "stolen /election" playbook they used by saying for months leading up to the election if Trump loses it is because of fraud, then when it happened the idea was already seeded, watered, and grown.

That already exists. It's called the Demonrat Primary.

Hell, I'm ready to be all-in on DeSantis and hope Trump steps aside/stands down but it doesn't take much to figure out what the worse than useless sacks of shit under the "never Trump" banner are. They're fucking (D)s.

The only meaningful difference in the bulk of them versus actual Ds is the willingness to publicly declare moral, intellectual, and economical bankruptcy, interested in nothing so much as destroying a once great nation as quickly & thorougly as possible.

And for as little regard as I have for Ds -- I still rate the party below Al-Qaida -- at least they're willing to just admit who & what they are, if not in words than by deed and association. That's more than can be said for that pack of rabble.

what the hell

There he is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eh, I would just say that it's tough to expect the average person to make these kinds of calls and thread the needle between being principled and being practical. That's assuming they are conscientious and well-informed, which of course isn't going to be the case for most anyway.

It's not all that different from how Democrats coalesced around Biden when it looked like Bernie might win the nomination, or how a lot of Democrats don't want Biden to run again but at the same time won't accept the y current alternatives such as RFK Jr. I just think at a certain point you either accept the front-runner/presumptive nominee or you don't, but also we're really early in the process and it's way too soon to require that kind of narrowing.

One point I would differ on in 2016; I don't think the problem was that the anti-Trump republicans wouldn't support a single candidate. I think it was that the majority of republicans wanted Trump. As hilarious as it is to hear Jon calling life-long, dedicated Republicans like John Kasich Democrats, the voters told their party leadership they didn't like what they were selling and liked Trump better. If that's still the case, they'll nominate him again regardless of who the other candidates are.

Are we pretending RFK Jr. is a viable "alternative?" I don't think saying democrats won't accept him as an alternative is a valid point anymore than it would be to call your kid a picky eater and then citing his refusal to eat his own excrement as your example.

Yeah, RFK Jr. isn't serious.

It is understood that if your incumbent president wants to run for reelection, you don't oppose that. You'll always get your cranks who try. But all the serious candidates are going to wait four years. (Or jump in if Biden has a health scare and decides not to run again).

Ok, but that's really kind of the point, isn't it? I agree with albion that the incumbent running again is expected, but about half of Democrats say they don't want him to. So if you're going to say that, then you have to say who would be a reasonable alternative.

You can say the same thing about alternatives to Trump in 2016 or this year, none of them are acceptable and so on. I mean, I don't see it that way and I'm sure you likely don't, but I think it's also obvious that at least in '16 that is the way a lot of republican primary voters saw it. And if you want to throw out the RFK example be my guest, but the Sanders-Biden situation I think is fairly squarely on point.

My only point here is RFK Jr. is not a serious alternative. He's a literal joke.