Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[romad1]

5 hours ago, ewsieg said:

What did I say was made up?

 And yeah, I both sides the shit out of everything because I want to understand each side.  For 6-7 years now I’ve “both sides” everything as I’ve made it clear which side was worse. 95% of what all you partisans complain about the GOP, I absolutely agree with you on. But because I question what the narrative out of anyone with a D next to them, I’m just “both sidsin”. 
 

You accused Milley of being the most corrupt JCS ever. 

[romad1]

Let me just say that I appreciated that Milley stood in the breech against Trump and then named names in the Jan 6 hearings.   He did not allow Trump to arrest and court-martial retired military officers for criticizing Trump. 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034620/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034620.pdf

[mtutiger]

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

What did I say was made up?

There were actual GOP politicians out there messaging along the lines of sitting out there with their piece and shooting it down. 

It's not the caricature you seem to imply it was, it is a reflection of where much of the party and it's base of support is right now. Just not serious about the implications of the balloon and more concerned with the political messaging around the balloon.

[oblong]

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

What did I say was made up?

 And yeah, I both sides the shit out of everything because I want to understand each side.  For 6-7 years now I’ve “both sides” everything as I’ve made it clear which side was worse. 95% of what all you partisans complain about the GOP, I absolutely agree with you on. But because I question what the narrative out of anyone with a D next to them, I’m just “both sidsin”. 
 

Your both sides attempts very often consist of comparing something that did happen to something that didn't happen or at best, might have happened.

 

 

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

You accused Milley of being the most corrupt JCS ever. 

Also seemed to suggest the possibility Pentagon made up the existence of balloons under Trump because people on Twitter and GOP pols hurt their fee fees.

Like, that's just not a serious suggestion... I suspect no one in the Pentagon gives a **** about the Ben Shapiros of the world and what they are transmitting on Twitter.

Edited February 7, 2023 by mtutiger

[oblong]

and my point was that because of the lack of a formal transition that is usually about 10 weeks, such information may not have been shared between the staffs that do not carryover from admin to admin.  They condensed things to two weeks after Jan 6.  There's a difference between giving someone the benefit of the doubt and just making up hypotheticals.

 

 

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I bet we give dictatorships too much credit for having their shit together sometimes. Just because a guy like Xi is the ultimate authority on everything and anything, doesn't mean he has a clue about everything going on in his government - no one person ever could. I would guess the truth is their bureaucracy probably works a lot worse even than ours- so you probably have all kind of PLA brass running around with their own bankrolls and pet schemes and you end up with stuff like this.

Xi might not have intimate knowledge of what some street corner camera in Hangzhou is revealing, but I’d bet he has a pretty good idea of what these “balloon” cameras are showing.

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

You accused Milley of being the most corrupt JCS ever. 

You clearly didn't understand my post.  It was in response to the idea that because Trump was president, DoD was so inept that it didn't even know about balloons during his admin, but suddenly became competent again once Biden was president.  As such I joked that Milley finally 'saw the light' and became competent the day Biden was sworn in.  

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

There were actual GOP politicians out there messaging along the lines of sitting out there with their piece and shooting it down. 

It's not the caricature you seem to imply it was, it is a reflection of where much of the party and it's base of support is right now. Just not serious about the implications of the balloon and more concerned with the political messaging around the balloon.

Do you really think they really thought they could hit the balloon?  Your second paragraph is spot on, there was nothing serious about their response.  Biden choose not to shoot it down so they reacted by going the opposite way.  No actual attempt at thought, just partisan bullshit.

But in my both sidsin' way, the talking points I heard out of the dem party, while sounding a little more reasonable on it's face, were equally partisan.  Some of those talking points were mirrored on this site in how it was downplayed, which helps mock the right for getting upset about it.  Don't the average idiots know China has satellites which are so much better?  You don't think China has heard of Google Earth?  TicTok anyone?  You all seriously think they can gain any Intel from a balloon?   No true idea about the risk either, but it helps support the narrative of their side.  

[mtutiger]

46 minutes ago, oblong said:

and my point was that because of the lack of a formal transition that is usually about 10 weeks, such information may not have been shared between the staffs that do not carryover from admin to admin.  They condensed things to two weeks after Jan 6.  There's a difference between giving someone the benefit of the doubt and just making up hypotheticals.

 

 

The explanation that maybe intelligence emerged after Trump's departure that alerted the Biden Administration that this was a possibility makes the most sense to me.

But that's also the least politically expedient possibility, so clearly that's gonna be a less popular option for some

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Also seemed to suggest the possibility Pentagon made up the existence of balloons under Trump because people on Twitter and GOP pols hurt their fee fees.

Yeah, "High level sources inside of the Intelligence department" always prove to be 100% accurate for journalists.

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, ewsieg said:

Yeah, "High level sources inside of the Intelligence department" always prove to be 100% accurate for journalists.

They are sure as **** more credible than internet randos inventing the possibility out of thin air, yes.

[mtutiger]

15 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Do you really think they really thought they could hit the balloon?  

Didn't I already say that it was a vice signaling exercise?

I'm just saying that the characterization that I highlighted in your initial post isn't some caricature cooked up in a lab somewhere, it derives from actual GOP messaging on this issue.

15 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

 

But in my both sidsin' way, the talking points I heard out of the dem party, while sounding a little more reasonable on it's face, were equally partisan.  Some of those talking points were mirrored on this site in how it was downplayed, which helps mock the right for getting upset about it.  Don't the average idiots know China has satellites which are so much better?  You don't think China has heard of Google Earth?  TicTok anyone?  You all seriously think they can gain any Intel from a balloon?   No true idea about the risk either, but it helps support the narrative of their side.  

The bolded is pretty revealing.

I honestly don't give a shit about "narratives" and what's convenient for who.... on something like this, I care more about what actual risks would happen from shooting down the balloon, or the truth about why this happened in the first plavce.

That's really my biggest problem with this whole affair.... "what may have actually happened" has been placed on the backburner in favor of the usual political food fight. And as much as you try to frame your view as "non-partisan", politics largely have been front and center in your view of this affair.

Edited February 7, 2023 by mtutiger

[romad1]

20 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

You clearly didn't understand my post.  It was in response to the idea that because Trump was president, DoD was so inept that it didn't even know about balloons during his admin, but suddenly became competent again once Biden was president.  As such I joked that Milley finally 'saw the light' and became competent the day Biden was sworn in.  

Do you really think they really thought they could hit the balloon?  Your second paragraph is spot on, there was nothing serious about their response.  Biden choose not to shoot it down so they reacted by going the opposite way.  No actual attempt at thought, just partisan bullshit.

But in my both sidsin' way, the talking points I heard out of the dem party, while sounding a little more reasonable on it's face, were equally partisan.  Some of those talking points were mirrored on this site in how it was downplayed, which helps mock the right for getting upset about it.  Don't the average idiots know China has satellites which are so much better?  You don't think China has heard of Google Earth?  TicTok anyone?  You all seriously think they can gain any Intel from a balloon?   No true idea about the risk either, but it helps support the narrative of their side.  

Clearly i didn't understand.  I thought you were casting dirt on a guy who did the right thing and since Jan6 has been forthcoming about the threat to the Constitution.  

[ewsieg]

Just now, mtutiger said:

They are sure as **** more credible than internet randos inventing the possibility out of thin air, yes.

I'm not saying it was made up, although I guess I wouldn't put it past a few loners in the DoD and a reporter that wants the clicks.  But as you just said, it's a fresh story.  Fresh stories tend to have information that isn't always accurate or at least full context. 

[ewsieg]

21 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

That's really my biggest problem with this whole affair.... "what may have actually happened" has been placed on the backburner in favor of the usual political food fight. And as much as you try to frame your view as "non-partisan", politics largely have been front and center in your view of this affair.

If not simply not fully buying anything the democrats say until I hear more of the story just because the republicans are idiots makes me partisan, I guess I am.

15 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Clearly i didn't understand.  I thought you were casting dirt on a guy who did the right thing and since Jan6 has been forthcoming about the threat to the Constitution.  

Absolutely not and I'm guessing you didn't see my other post either that pointed out the vast majority of DoD are professional and dedicated workers that take their jobs seriously, so the idea that the entirety of the DoD couldn't identify balloons under Trump for no other reason than Trump is POTUS, but the same 99.9% of the DoD, minus a few folks in leadership is so incredible under Biden that they not only identified this balloon but issues that weren't detected by themselves when Trump was in charge fails the smell test.

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, ewsieg said:

If not simply not fully buying anything the democrats say until I hear more of the story just because the republicans are idiots makes me partisan, I guess I am.

I didn't realize The Pentagon were all Democrats.

[ewsieg]

6 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I didn't realize The Pentagon were all Democrats.

I was referring to the dem talking points we saw yesterday, that it's silly to even take this seriously (china already has satellites, tiktok, google earth).  Even though on the other hand the admin folks were pointing to not sending Blinken to show they are taking this seriously.

As for the Pentagon, we have always seen leaks from the Pentagon no matter who is president.  Sometimes against the administration (hence likely someone that sides with the other party) and sometimes leaks that may have been directed by the administration (hence likely someone that sides with the party in power).  So yes, i'm sure there are a few democrats that might leak something, just as i'm sure there are a few republicans that would do the same.

[romad1]

Can we stop with this?   I don't get arguing with someone who is just typing words.  Its like a ChatGPT programmed for random jibberish. 

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, ewsieg said:

I was referring to the dem talking points we saw yesterday, that it's silly to even take this seriously (china already has satellites, tiktok, google earth).  Even though on the other hand the admin folks were pointing to not sending Blinken to show they are taking this seriously.

I'll address the TikTok piece since that was mine... the TikTok thing isn't a Dem talking point... if anything, GOP politicians, to their credit, actually take the security risks from TikTok more seriously than most Democratic politicians do.

But my bringing it up doesn't mean that I believe it is silly to take the balloon thing seriously, it means that I consider the proliferation of that app far more concerning than the balloon. And, by extension, wish that the media would give even one quarter of the attention that it has given this incident toward that particular issue.

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

As for the Pentagon, we have always seen leaks from the Pentagon no matter who is president.  Sometimes against the administration (hence likely someone that sides with the other party) and sometimes leaks that may have been directed by the administration (hence likely someone that sides with the party in power).  So yes, i'm sure there are a few democrats that might leak something, just as i'm sure there are a few republicans that would do the same.

The extension of the beliefs expressed above is basically that there is no truth and that it's cool to just go with whatever sounds good.

I don't buy that... until given a reason to believe otherwise, if the Pentagon says that balloons were flown over the US Mainland during the previous administration, I will take them at their word. Full stop.

[ewsieg]

28 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The extension of the beliefs expressed above is basically that there is no truth and that it's cool to just go with whatever sounds good.

I don't buy that... until given a reason to believe otherwise, if the Pentagon says that balloons were flown over the US Mainland during the previous administration, I will take them at their word. Full stop.

I certainly didn't mean to say there was no truth to it, but I fully admit I am taking the information with a grain of salt, at least at this time.  

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I certainly didn't mean to say there was no truth to it, but I fully admit I am taking the information with a grain of salt, at least at this time.  

Why just this time?

[ewsieg]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Why just this time?

Not 'at least this time', but 'at least at this time.'  Call me wishy/washy, but I want more of the story before I get to making a definitive statement especially on a developing story. 

[Tigeraholic1]

😩

 

[mtutiger]

Yiiiikes