And very briefly on this final bit from the anti-anti-Trump left; the idea is that serious investigation of collusion between Russia and the Trump administration would somehow benefit "corporate power," which is generally associated with the defense industrial base.
In its most crude, "Lockheed Martin wants likes the Russia investigation because it creates a new Cold War which means more F-35s." This was based on the apparent belief that Russia drives some significant portion of US defense spending.
As anyone familiar with force planning and the budget could have mentioned, the foreign (as opposed to internal) driver of the defense budget is China, and it has been for 15 years or so. The reason is that China poses a much more significant military threat than Russia.
It's not *quite* true to say that Russia is a lesser included case for the buildup of capabilities intended for competition with China, but it ain't far off. The state of US-Russian relations after roughly 2008 are pretty much inconsequential for the defense budget.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lotta GOPsters hoped that they could keep their heads down and get through the transition, apparently forgetting that outbidding is a thing.
And hey, I can appreciate the true level of anger that they have against Hawley and Cruz. It's one thing to get outbid by a genuine idiot like Gohmert; comes with the territory when you've decided to represent the kind of people who make up the GOP primary electorate.
Hawley and Cruz aren't dumb, they're just utterly unprincipled and are outbidding in an effort to control the future of the party. Turning a crisis into an opportunity, so to speak.
This needs to be emphasized more, because it’s not accidental. It’s the result of ideological hostility to governance that produces decision-makers who are inept at best, and view politics as a mechanism for distributing spoils at worst. Often both.
Before March I was onboard the “worse human than Bush, but not thus far a worse President” train, because Trump had been lucky enough to avoid any serious external crises. That ended in March, with predictable effect.
And while generally I’m happy that we’ve shifted to the idea that invading Iraq was a Bad Idea, and not simply Bad Execution, it’s worth remembering that it was in fact a Bad Idea that was Very Badly Executed in large part because of the way the GOP approaches governance.
There are a few big claims that I can't exactly disagree with:
1) Wargames have shown China has a path to victory 2) Bureaucratic politics matter in US defense 3) Major US platforms have vulnerabilities that China can take advantage of
But all of those deserve extremely big caveats. Regarding the first, I know of first-hand and have heard of second-hand numerous wargames where the US military cleans the PLA's clock, so to speak.
The electoral college is not doing what it was designed to do, because it wasn't "designed" in any meaningful sense of the term. The extant electoral college is a kludge of different elements that existed for different purposes in the early republic.
For my part, I honestly don't give a fuck if the EC favors either rural or urban voters; I prefer a majoritarian Presidential election in any case. But even if your purpose is to maximize the impact of rural voters, the EC is a *horrible* way to go about it.
In service of maximizing the influence of the good people of Wyoming, the EC effectively "disenfranchised" (if we're going to bother using that term) *many* Wyoming-sized chunks of the GOP electorate in California.