Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Infidel144]

What (article is pay walled for me)? Milley said he would alert China if the the US was going to attack China? Did he do this with approval from the President?

[Heathen Hammer]

Who knows, maybe Milley notified Taliban too, to help them against ANA for some weird CIA globalist reasons?

[Lord Thesaurian]

What (article is pay walled for me)? Milley said he would alert China if the the US was going to attack China? Did he do this with approval from the President?

Milley did not tell Trump, the whole idea was not to.

In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa.

One call took place on Oct. 30, 2020, four days before the election that unseated President Trump, and the other on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol siege carried out by his supporters in a quest to cancel the vote.

Secret phone calls with a hostile foreign military. With friends like Milley, who needs enemies? Even more troubling, the allegations are made to praise him as a kind of modern day Stanislav Petrov. If it wasn’t clear before, it is now. We’ve already lost the next war, if this guy has anything to say about it.

[Infidel144]

Milley did not tell Trump, the whole idea was not to.

Secret phone calls with a hostile foreign military. With friends like Milley, who needs enemies? Even more troubling, the allegations are made to praise him as a kind of modern day Stanislav Petrov. If it wasn’t clear before, it is now. We’ve already lost the next war, if this guy has anything to say about it.

Insomnia has me rather foggy, let me try here:
Milley, an appointed not elected official, did an end run around the President (his boss). He contacted foreign officials of his own volition to assure that State he would, again of his own volition, give that (enemy) State advance knowledge of the initiation of hostilities.

Isn't this treasonous behavior?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Insomnia has me rather foggy, let me try here:
Milley, an appointed not elected official, did an end run around the President (his boss). He contacted foreign officials of his own volition to assure that State he would, again of his own volition, give that (enemy) State advance knowledge of the initiation of hostilities.

Isn't this treasonous behavior?

Correct. China isn’t officially at war with us, but that hardly matters since Milley has already let the world know what he would do if they were. Let’s just say he should be glad I’m not in charge. Liberals fawning over Milley doing what they apoplectically accused Trump of doing is peak clown world.

[Infidel144]

10 U.S. Code § 153 - Chairman: functions

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(a)Planning; Advice; Policy Formulation.—Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President and the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall be responsible for the following1)Strategic direction.—
Assisting the President and the Secretary in providing for the strategic direction of the armed forces.
(2)Strategic and contingency planning.—In matters relating to strategic and contingency planning—
(A)developing strategic frameworks and preparing strategic plans, as required, to guide the use and employment of military force and related activities across all geographic regions and military functions and domains, and to sustain military efforts over different durations of time, as necessary;
(B)advising the Secretary on the production of the national defense strategy required by section 113(g) of this title and the national security strategy required by section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3043);
(C)preparing military analysis, options, and plans, as the Chairman considers appropriate, to recommend to the President and the Secretary;
(D)providing for the preparation and review of contingency plans which conform to policy guidance from the President and the Secretary; and
(E)preparing joint logistic and mobility plans to support national defense strategies and recommending the assignment of responsibilities to the armed forces in accordance with such plans.
(3)Global military integration.—In matters relating to global military strategic and operational integration—
(A)providing advice to the President and the Secretary on ongoing military operations; and
(B)advising the Secretary on the allocation and transfer of forces among geographic and functional combatant commands, as necessary, to address transregional, multi-domain, and multifunctional threats.
(4)Comprehensive joint readiness.—In matters relating to comprehensive joint readiness—
(A)evaluating the overall preparedness of the joint force to perform the responsibilities of that force under national defense strategies and to respond to significant contingencies worldwide;
(B)assessing the risks to United States missions, strategies, and military personnel that stem from shortfalls in military readiness across the armed forces, and developing risk mitigation options;
(C)advising the Secretary on critical deficiencies and strengths in joint force capabilities (including manpower, logistics, and mobility support) identified during the preparation and review of national defense strategies and contingency plans and assessing the effect of such deficiencies and strengths on meeting national security objectives and policy and on strategic plans;
(D)advising the Secretary on the missions and functions that are likely to require contractor or other external support to meet national security objectives and policy and strategy, and the risks associated with such support; and
(E)establishing and maintaining, after consultation with the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands, a uniform system of evaluating the preparedness of each such command, and groups of commands collectively, to carry out missions assigned to the command or commands.
(5)Joint capability development.—In matters relating to joint capability development—
(A)identifying new joint military capabilities based on advances in technology and concepts of operation needed to maintain the technological and operational superiority of the armed forces, and recommending investments and experiments in such capabilities to the Secretary;
(B)performing military net assessments of the joint capabilities of the armed forces of the United States and its allies in comparison with the capabilities of potential adversaries;
(C)advising the Secretary under section 163(b)(2) of this title on the priorities of the requirements identified by the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands;
(D)advising the Secretary on the extent to which the program recommendations and budget proposals of the military departments and other components of the Department of Defense for a fiscal year conform with the priorities established in national defense strategies and with the priorities established for the requirements of the unified and specified combatant commands;
(E)advising the Secretary on new and alternative joint military capabilities, and alternative program recommendations and budget proposals, within projected resource levels and guidance provided by the Secretary, in order to achieve greater conformance with the priorities referred to in subparagraph (D);
(F)assessing joint military capabilities and identifying, approving, and prioritizing gaps in such capabilities to meet national defense strategies, pursuant to section 181 of this title; and
(G)recommending to the Secretary appropriate trade-offs among life-cycle cost, schedule, performance, and procurement quantity objectives in the acquisition of materiel and equipment to support the strategic and contingency plans required by this paragraph in the most effective and efficient manner.
(6)Joint force development activities.—In matters relating to joint force development activities—
(A)developing doctrine for the joint employment of the armed forces;
(B)formulating policies and technical standards, and executing actions, for the joint training of the armed forces;
(C)formulating policies for coordinating the military education of members of the armed forces;
(D)formulating policies for development and experimentation on both urgent and long-term concepts for joint force employment, including establishment of a process within the Joint Staff for analyzing and prioritizing gaps in capabilities that could potentially be addressed by joint concept development using existing or modified joint force capabilities;
(E)formulating policies for gathering, developing, and disseminating joint lessons learned for the armed forces; and
(F)advising the Secretary on development of joint command, control, communications, and cybercapability, including integration and interoperability of such capability, through requirements, integrated architectures, data standards, and assessments.
(7)Other matters.—In other matters—
(A)recommending to the Secretary, in accordance with section 166 of this title, a budget proposal for activities of each unified and specified combatant command;
(B)providing for representation of the United States on the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
(C)performing such other duties as may be prescribed by law or by the President or the Secretary.
(b)National Military Strategy.—
(1)National military strategy.—
(A)The Chairman shall determine each even-numbered year whether to prepare a new National Military Strategy in accordance with this paragraph or to update a strategy previously prepared in accordance with this paragraph. The Chairman shall provide such National Military Strategy or update to the Secretary of Defense in time for transmittal to Congress pursuant to paragraph (3), including in time for inclusion in the report of the Secretary of Defense, if any, under paragraph (4).
(B)Each National Military Strategy (or update) under this paragraph shall be based on a comprehensive review conducted by the Chairman in conjunction with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands. Each update shall address only those parts of the most recent National Military Strategy for which the Chairman determines, on the basis of the review, that a modification is needed.
(C)Each National Military Strategy (or update) submitted under this paragraph shall describe how the military will support the objectives of the United States as articulated in—
(i)the most recent National Security Strategy prescribed by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3043);
(ii)the most recent annual report of the Secretary of Defense submitted to the President and Congress pursuant to section 113 of this title;
(iii)the most recent national defense strategy presented by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 113 of this title;
(iv)the most recent policy guidance provided by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 113(g) of this title; and
(v)any other national security or defense strategic guidance issued by the President or the Secretary of Defense.
(D)At a minimum, each National Military Strategy (or update) submitted under this paragraph shall—
(i)assess the strategic environment, threats, opportunities, and challenges that affect the national security of the United States;
(ii)assess military ends, ways, and means to support the objectives referred to in subparagraph (C);
(iii)provide the framework for the assessment by the Chairman of military risk, and for the development of risk mitigation options;
(iv)develop military options to address threats and opportunities;
(v)assess joint force capabilities, capacities, and resources; and
(vi)establish military guidance for the development of the joint force and the total force building on guidance by the President and the Secretary of Defense as referred to in subparagraph (C).
(2)Risk assessment.—
(A)The Chairman shall prepare each year an assessment of the risks associated with the most current National Military Strategy (or update) under paragraph (1). The risk assessment shall be known as the “Risk Assessment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff”. The Chairman shall complete preparation of the Risk Assessment in time for transmittal to Congress pursuant to paragraph (3), including in time for inclusion in the report of the Secretary of Defense, if any, under paragraph (4).
(B)The Risk Assessment shall do the following:
(i)As the Chairman considers appropriate, update any changes to the strategic environment, threats, objectives, force planning and sizing constructs, assessments, and assumptions that informed the National Military Strategy (or update) required by this section.
(ii)Identify and define the military strategic risks to United States interests and military risks in executing the National Military Strategy (or update).
(iii)Identify and define levels of risk, including an identification of what constitutes “significant” risk in the judgment of the Chairman.
(iv)
(I)Identify and assess risk in the National Military Strategy (or update) by category and level and the ways in which risk might manifest itself, including how risk is projected to increase, decrease, or remain stable over time; and
(II)for each category of risk, assess the extent to which current or future risk increases, decreases, or is stable as a result of budgetary priorities, tradeoffs, or fiscal constraints or limitations as currently estimated and applied in the current future-years defense program under section 221 of this title.
(v)Identify and assess risk associated with the assumptions or plans of the National Military Strategy (or update) about the contributions of external support, as appropriate.
(vi)Identify and assess the critical deficiencies and strengths in force capabilities (including manpower, logistics, intelligence, and mobility support) identified during the preparation and review of the contingency plans of each unified combatant command, and identify and assess the effect of such deficiencies and strengths for the National Military Strategy (or update).
(3)Submittal of national military strategy and risk assessment to congress.—
(A)Not later than February 15 of each even-numbered year, the Chairman shall, through the Secretary of Defense, submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the National Military Strategy or update, if any, prepared under paragraph (1) in such year.
(B)Not later than February 15 each year, the Chairman shall, through the Secretary of Defense, submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the Risk Assessment prepared under paragraph (2) in such year.
(C)The National Military Strategy (or update) and Risk Assessment submitted under this subsection shall be classified in form, but shall include an unclassified summary.
(4)Secretary of defense reports to congress.—
(A)In transmitting a National Military Strategy (or update) or Risk Assessment to Congress pursuant to paragraph (3), the Secretary of Defense shall include in the transmittal such comments of the Secretary thereon, if any, as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(B)If the Risk Assessment transmitted under paragraph (3) in a year includes an assessment that a risk or risks associated with the National Military Strategy (or update) are significant, or that critical deficiencies in force capabilities exist for a contingency plan described in paragraph (2)(B)(vi), the Secretary shall include in the transmittal of the Risk Assessment the plan of the Secretary for mitigating such risk or deficiency. A plan for mitigating risk of deficiency under this subparagraph shall—
(i)address the risk assumed in the National Military Strategy (or update) concerned, and the additional actions taken or planned to be taken to address such risk using only current technology and force structure capabilities; and
(ii)specify, for each risk addressed, the extent of, and a schedule for expected mitigation of, such risk, and an assessment of the potential for residual risk, if any, after mitigation.
(c)Annual Report on Combatant Command Requirements.—
(1)Not later than 25 days after the date on which the budget of the President for a fiscal year is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, the Chairman shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the requirements of the combatant commands established under section 161 of this title.
(2)Each report under paragraph (1) shall contain the following:
(A)A consolidation of the integrated priority lists of requirements of the combatant commands.
(B)The Chairman’s views on the consolidated lists.
(C)A description of the extent to which the most recent future-years defense program (under section 221 of this title) addresses the requirements on the consolidated lists.
(D)A description of the funding proposed in the President’s budget for the next fiscal year, and for the subsequent fiscal years covered by the most recent future-years defense program, to address each deficiency in readiness identified during the joint readiness review conducted under section 117 of this title for the first quarter of the current fiscal year.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/153
It is, of course, possible I missed it, however, I do not see anything in there that says the Chairman of the JCS is permitted, of his own volition, to contact foreign powers, hostile or otherwise, and offer them assistance.
Provided the information the WaPo (not a Trump sycophantic publication) is providing is correct, Milley, if he had any honour, should resign. If the Biden administration had any guts, Milley should be court-martialed and, if found guilty, hung.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There’s a long list of Biden officials who would resign if they had any honor, including Biden himself. None have, to my knowledge.

[Prodromos]

The common carrier approach to big tech regulation could work supposing that it was enacted federally, rather than locally. It is (or at least was) already applied to ISPs to enforce net neutrality, which, so far as I recall, prevents ISPs from discriminating on the basis of content. That said, this Texan legislation looks to be more of a gesture than a meaningful challenge to online censorship. For the time being, conservatives and other dissidents will have to rely on building their own platforms.

My understanding is that 'dissidents' aren't complaining they can't have their own social media platforms, they're complaining about not being able to propagate their views to a large, neutral audience. They can't solve that problem by creating their own 'free-speech' platforms, because those kinds of platforms tend to quickly turn into neo-Nazi echo chambers and fail to attract any normal or politically neutral users.

It's probably impossible for a social media platform to go mainstream without restricting 'dissident' voices in some way. The average person simply has no interest in 'free-speech zones' like 4chan or Gab.

[Coughdrop addict]

My understanding is that 'dissidents' aren't complaining they can't have their own social media platforms, they're complaining about not being able to propagate their views to a large, neutral audience. They can't solve that problem by creating their own 'free-speech' platforms, because those kinds of platforms tend to quickly turn into neo-Nazi echo chambers and fail to attract any normal or politically neutral users.

It's probably impossible for a social media platform to go mainstream without restricting 'dissident' voices in some way. The average person simply has no interest in 'free-speech zones' like 4chan or Gab.

As a general rule political extremists never see the unpopularity of themselves and their message as resulting from something wrong with either. Their egos won't let them consider it. Instead they attribute any difficulties or setbacks to whatever group they blame for the world's ills and fervently believe that if they could just get the message to the poor brainwashed masses, they'd instantly agree and carry the extremists on their shoulders to the glorious revolution. A Neo-nazi believes that only the worldwide Jewish conspiracy running interference keeps all Whites from agreeing with him, and a Communist thinks every worker who doesn't want to fight and die for the worker's paradise is brainwashed by Capitalists.

If the extremists actually do manage to get in power they are always shocked to see that they still don't have 100% approval, and conclude that these people must be brainwashed at best (and in need of reeducation camps) or working with the enemy at worst (and need to be killed).

[Cope]

My understanding is that 'dissidents' aren't complaining they can't have their own social media platforms, they're complaining about not being able to propagate their views to a large, neutral audience. They can't solve that problem by creating their own 'free-speech' platforms, because those kinds of platforms tend to quickly turn into neo-Nazi echo chambers and fail to attract any normal or politically neutral users.

It's probably impossible for a social media platform to go mainstream without restricting 'dissident' voices in some way. The average person simply has no interest in 'free-speech zones' like 4chan or Gab.

Social media was mainstream and (largely) laissez faire long before liberals successfully pressured larger platforms into censorship/anti-competitiveness.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm pretty sure having a private conversation with foreign official in such capacity, given conversation's nature, can and should be considered treason: Milley has provided aid and relief to a foreign actor without notifying his commanders. So we know for a fact that Milley committed treason, so why isn't he being arrested and court-marshalled?
The only possible conclusion is that the rest of military leadership is either in on it as well, or is too incompetent to to actually be in such position. Both version hint at the fact that America is kinda screwed, as America is effectively defenseless against foreign threats.

My understanding is that 'dissidents' aren't complaining they can't have their own social media platforms, they're complaining about not being able to propagate their views to a large, neutral audience. They can't solve that problem by creating their own 'free-speech' platforms, because those kinds of platforms tend to quickly turn into neo-Nazi echo chambers and fail to attract any normal or politically neutral users.

It's probably impossible for a social media platform to go mainstream without restricting 'dissident' voices in some way. The average person simply has no interest in 'free-speech zones' like 4chan or Gab.

This has nothing to do with extremism (bug tech has no problem giving platform to violent leftists and their islamic fundamentalist comrades, and only seems to target content that puts Western political establishment in bad light), and more to do with bug tech fearing independent creators. I mean some letsplayer has larger audience that CNN viewership on the same platform. That make little corporate bug people seethe, hence the censorship.
I don't think corporations have a "right" to determine what can be said on the Internet. I don't see anything wrong with punishing corporations that deny platform to content that doesn't violate hosting nation's laws. Don't like it? don't be a platform, be a publisher instead. But we all know, why neoliberal lunatic bugmen don't want that.

[Prodromos]

Social media was mainstream and (largely) laissez faire long before liberals successfully pressured larger platforms into censorship/anti-competitiveness.

I've been on various social media sites for ~15 years now and I'd struggle to think of one mainstream platform that didn't restrict objectionable content like racism or what-have-you.

The Left is very good at shifting the definition of 'objectionable content' to include mainstream conservative beliefs, but the answer to that isn't to do away with content restrictions completely, it's to advocate restricting only truly objectionable content.

I don't think corporations have a "right" to determine what can be said on the Internet. I don't see anything wrong with punishing corporations that deny platform to content that doesn't violate hosting nation's laws. Don't like it? don't be a platform, be a publisher instead. But we all know, why neoliberal lunatic bugmen don't want that.

Thanks for the socialist point of view.

[Cope]

I've been on various social media sites for ~15 years now and I'd struggle to think of one mainstream platform that didn't restrict objectionable content like racism or what-have-you.

Most mainstream platforms are happy to host prejudice and discrimination so long as it conforms with liberal standards (which are viewed as corporate safe).

The Left is very good at shifting the definition of 'objectionable content' to include mainstream conservative beliefs, but the answer to that isn't to do away with content restrictions completely, it's to advocate restricting only truly objectionable content.

Classifying a service as a common carrier doesn't mean it can be used without restriction (not even the 1A protects all speech). The purpose would be to create a level playing field for all customers which, if breached, could be challenged in law.

Thanks for the socialist point of view.

It's not really "socialist" when many large social media sites are immune from the legal consequences of third party content while also having the right to curate at their leisure.

[Heathen Hammer]

Thanks for the socialist point of view.

I'm such a socialist for defending such marxist concepts as free market of ideas and freedom of speech.

[irontaino]

I didn't see this posted anywhere, so other news, the attempted recall in California was defeated in a landslide.

[Cope]

California voting for a Democrat isn't what I would call "news".

[Coughdrop addict]

California voting for a Democrat isn't what I would call "news".

It is when Trump and his cult are saying the vote was rigged because their egos cannot handle loss, which will hurt the GOP in 2022.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...mended_content

Former President Trump spent the days before the recall spreading more lies about the results of an election that hadn’t even been run yet. He and Newson's chief rival, conservative radio host Larry Elder (R), both claimed the election was rigged — charges that go well beyond straining credulity when nearly 2 in 3 voters cast a ballot in one direction.
But Republicans are starting to fear that Trump’s ridiculous allegations are actually hurting their performance in elections. They are especially worried about the damage Trump is doing to mail-in ballot habits of base Republican voters, habits that GOP strategists have spent years building up. Registered Democrats made up a disproportionately high share of ballots returned by mail, while many Republicans appear to have waited for Election Day to vote — if they voted at all.
“Has Trump killed mail ballots to the detriment of the party?” asked Rob Stutzman, a longtime Republican strategist who worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger during the 2003 recall. “If the votes don’t come in, Republicans are really going to have to struggle with how to turn that around.”
The problem goes far beyond California: Republicans already grumble that Trump was all too happy to depress GOP turnout in January’s Georgia Senate runoffs, which handed control of the Senate to Democrats. If Republican voters aren’t confident in the vote-by-mail systems increasingly being used in other states, it makes a Republican campaign’s challenge to track down and chase voters on Election Day all the more difficult.

[Sir Adrian]

That doesn't make it news.

[Heathen Hammer]

Democrat supporters currently on social media: "Well, our leadership consists of traitors, pedophiles, hypocritical champagne communists, and warmongering lunatics, but at least they are not as spiteful or rude as Trump is!"

[Lord Thesaurian]

The radical left wing of the Democrat Party specifically refused to support their own massive spending bill if it includes funding for Israel’s Iron Dome. So the Democrats caved to the people who apparently want Israel to get hit with rockets from Islamist terror groups. This from the party that likes to call everyone else racist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shootin...si-11632261494