Trump Consciousness

#61
It irked me David Bailey administrator scolds Steve about some casual political remark on the Sean Webb page, which I found apropos because it goes to the heart of posing to have critical thinking skills. Then David proceeds to go into a little pro Trump tirade that smacks of naked hypocrisy.
I want to make it clear that I do very little moderation, most of the time I post here as an ordinary member, whose opinions stand or fall on their own merits. My promotion from Moderator to Administrator was some sort of software glitch!

When I do actually intervene it is usually because someone has pressed the 'Report' button for one reason or another. The main action I take is to PM people and have a private discussion, though real trouble makers do get banned. My comment to Steve, was as an ordinary member.

In the past we have suffered attacks that threatened to bring discussion here to its knees. Either by trivialising the conversation, engaging in endless attacks against anyone whose views were not completely in line with "established science", etc. I took the job on for no pay or perks, simply because I felt that some of the subjects covered here are worth protecting.
In the USA here Capitalism is worshipped even though it has totally corrupted our politics.
IMHO Capitalism is a real problem, but it is really hard to know what to replace it with. President Eisenhower referred to the "Military Industrial Complex", and he was obviously right to fear that. Many of the recent pointless wars have made profits for the arms manufacturers, and to that extent Tump's more cautious approach has probably dented those profits.
Here in the US, I haven't met one Trump supporter who doesn't think Trump is trying to protect status quo, i.e. White Western Culture. OK, fair enough, nothing wrong with that, but isn't that a bias?
That clash is similar in Britain. Some politicians want to make everyone feel guilty for what the country did in the past. I really disagree with that approach. Even if you accept the idea that a man should be responsible for what his forebears did, most of the people back then were as crushed by the capitalists as those of other races. Imagine being forced to go and fight a very dirty war and face death and disease for the sake of the profits of a remote elite. I also feel that the Dems are in danger of reigniting racial conflicts. There are very poor communities of white people here and in the states who don't feel racial guilt at all - racial guilt is very much a liberal elitist trip.

Surely it is possible to protect White Western Culture, without so much economic injustice and endless wars?

David
 
Last edited:
#62
IMHO Capitalism is a real problem, but it is really hard to know what to replace it with. President Eisenhower referred to the "Military Industrial Complex", and he was obviously right to fear that. Many of the recent pointless wars have made profits for the arms manufacturers, and to that extent Tump's more cautious approach has probably dented those profits.
Thanks David, Im here to admit to tons of bias. Lets get into why we roll the way we do. My opinion is people who make blanket political statements are lazy thinkers unless they explain why with some realism. The statement above is merely opinion and give me some evidence. I personally don't see any evidence any which way one checks the facts. Conservatives in the US lean towards Nationalism and increasing defense spending is a Republican platform here. Trump is Mr Conservative. I haven't seen any indications Trump wants to go against his base. Tons of opinions get thrown around about Trump both ways and lots of it is just biased farting nonsense.

P.S. I know all about Eisenhower. During his presidency tax rates for the wealthy was listed at 90%. https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fact-check-90-percent-taxes-eisenhower-1950s/ The reason was paying for WWII, which the US did quite nicely. Also Eisenhower is not a current model of a Conservative.
 
#64
Also Eisenhower is not a current model of a Conservative.
Neither, I think is President Trump!

Bias in politics can't be eliminated - in principle it can in science, but how often does even that happen?

I have voted for Labour and Conservative governments in the UK, most recently UKIP and the BREXIT party. I certainly supported Obama originally, but once Hillary became secretary of state, and more wars resulted, I became a Trump supporter. I also think 'climate change' is a hoax, so I liked him pulling out of the Paris agreement etc, although I would very like him to gather together some sort of public forum of climate scientists and scientists opponents. I suspect the climate scientists would run a mile from such a discussion, but at least that might show which side is able to support their viewpoint in a debate.

David
 
Last edited:
#65
Every economic system corrupts the political leaders. You are singling out capitalism unfairly and blaming it for the flaws in human nature.

The US is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the...-on-the-index-darker-red-means-more-corrupt-1
Transparency International published its latest Corruption Perceptions Index, a global ranking of fairness around the world.
...
Here's a map of the countries on the index — darker red means more corrupt.


Capitalism has done more to alleviate poverty than any other single factor in human history.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/09/capitalisms-triumph-michael-tanner/
" In the last 20 years, for instance, capitalism has lifted more than a billion people worldwide out of poverty "



How many Trump supporters is that?

Is "White Western Culture" what they said, or are you putting your words in their mouths?

I don't know why anyone would think the status quo in the US is White Western Culture,

US culture includes includes Rock music (African American) jazz music (African) Gunpowder (China) , Algebra (Arab) etc etc,
The US is 16 % Hispanic, 12% Black, 4% Asian. Implying the US is white is wrong. In only 25 years whites will not even be the majority ethnicity in the US.

And Trump is not trying to protect the status quo. The status quo is the problem Trump is trying to fix:

Socialism - too much government infringing on personal freedom inhibiting economic growth (see below on how this hurts the poor)

Globalism - international corporations profiting at the expense of ordinary people.

Unfair trade agreements with other countries that have led to loss of jobs in the US.

Political correctness - used by liberals to restrict free speech to silence political opposition.

And unrestricted immigration (no country in the world allows that). US politicians want it for two reasons to provide cheap labor for corporations and to increase the number of Democrat voters. Unrestricted immigration hurts poor citizens them most - it make it harder to find jobs and reduces wages and increases competition for low income housing and government resources allocated to the poor. Porous borders also help organized drug gangs and human traffickers to operate ruining countless lives of people the government should be protecting instead of profiting off of their destruction.


Because there is a cost/benefit analysis for everything and the cost is jobs for workers who have children to clothe, house, feed, send to college. Economic growth helps poor people most - it provides more jobs, better wages and benefits when there is a labor shortage.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/usa-meets-kyoto-protocol-without-ever-embracing-it/
USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it​
...​
In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.​


Public schools are not the place to teach religious practices to children and there are a lot of risks associated with meditation. That is something parents should oversee - not government run schools. The absolutely last thing I would want for my kids is to have them taught meditation in public school.


Can you please say what the evidence is that charter schools are corrupt?

Why do so many parents prefer charter schools to public schools? Because in some areas the public schools are horrible and the only chance children have for a decent education is from charter schools.

Jim Smith, Im not singling out Capitalism. In a mere 20 yrs the US almost single handedly created the world's second largest economy. Capitalism is the root of all civilization advancement from land ownership to competitive business to technology to space exploration. its a dynamic driving force. American and Western capitalism has helped the world transition from 3rd world and starving to consumer oriented and well fed. Think about it. Almost 8 billion people and there are less famines worldwide except maybe N Korea. Im not here to trash Capitalism. I want to be real about it. Its also responsible for poisoning our water, air, and food. Its responsible for species mass extinction. Probably our over population. It can be utterly corruptive if we let it. I believe Trump is a negative force to that end IMO.

Really, Im here strictly to attack your political beliefs. Im the devil advocate. As for Trump supporters I have them in my family and some of my closest friends and my boss is, who I truely value and care about. I never talk politics there or there or there, however I will do my best to trash your positions here.
Plus I know whats in their hearts because I am them. I just happened to wake up, thats all.

I hate to use this term cause its not mine but your drinking some kool aid there Jim. You started out as a conservative. Then you found ways to rationalize Trump. Michael Patterson exposed the tip of some of whats wrong with Trump and you dismissed it, brushed it aside. Thats bias. Admit it.

Look I'll address 2 items here. US CO2 emissions. You cited a 2012 survey. Heres a more current chart. Under Trump CO2 emission have declined less. Probably nothing that his appointed nincompoops did to reduce emission. They even stopped subsidizing new energy technologies. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/08/president-trump-seeking-major-cuts-to-renewable-subsidies/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...eenhouse-emissions-down-under-donald-trump-e/

2. My niece got her son in a charter school this year because he wasn't a good fit in that particular public school. However the charter school is private, not corporate run, which delivers what it charges for. However they recently moved from another state and in that public school he was thriving. In the US everything is for profit except the VA and its in really terrible shape and should be abolished. Healthcare, prisons, nursing homes, and schools, you name it. It kinda works in a half assed way. Like who decides how much to spend on quality and how much should go into my pocket if Im running a business. Here if you want to safe guard the public interest with regulatory policies, you could be labeled a Socialist. Unless your diabetic, then you might be pissed off that insulin has increased a few hundred percent.

Jim Im really surprised you asked me about corrupt charter schools, as if you never read about it. So Trump in his iconoclastic mode (Im for the little guy) appointed billionaire Betty Devos who made her fortune in wait for it.... private school financing is running the US Education Dept. Does Betty have a few conflicts of interests? Politico counted like 102. Betty is a shill for private industry. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/betsy-devos-potential-conflicts-financial-review-233906


Look US school systems are not run by the federal government. They're local affairs. Some are shitty, some are good. So lets trash public schools and let private industry have some of that tax money. What could go wrong?
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/09/18/report-shines-critical-light-on-floridas-charter.html
 
#66
Neither, I think is President Trump!

Bias in politics can't be eliminated - in principle it can in science, but how often does even that happen?

I have voted for Labour and Conservative governments in the UK, most recently UKIP and the BREXIT party. I certainly supported Obama originally, but once Hillary became secretary of state, and more wars resulted, I became a Trump supporter. I also think 'climate change' is a hoax, so I liked him pulling out of the Paris agreement etc, although I would very like him to gather together some sort of public forum of climate scientists and scientists opponents. I suspect the climate scientists would run a mile from such a discussion, but at least that might show which side is able to support their viewpoint in a debate.

David
Hillary as the Senator of NY was generally popular among all parties. She had some bills she co-sponsored with Republicans, she didnt mess anything up. Then she took the secretary of state job. There was Benghazi and the uranium sale and the Clinton Foundation and Conservatives piled on because they knew back in 2012 she was running for President. It was a great strategy for them, but was it valid? I mean what they wrote was it true?

We had a forum here about climate change. I read some of it and really just a bunch of biased opinions. You know there was a Ph.D geophysicist here who chimed in with salient facts. You bunch of know nothings shot him down. He left the forum in disgust. So believe what you will. If a Geophysicist couldn't cause you to look at the data. I certainly wont try.
 
#67
Then she took the secretary of state job. There was Benghazi and the uranium sale and the Clinton Foundation and Conservatives piled on because they knew back in 2012 she was running for President. It was a great strategy for them, but was it valid? I mean what they wrote was it true?
Well either Hillary or Obama - both I suppose - decided on the covert war in Syria and the attack on Libya. I know there is a uranium sale scandal, but I don't really know the details. Hillary also stated that she wanted to intensify the war in Syria if she got elected. I can't see how she can be excused responsibility for any of that.

We had a forum here about climate change. I read some of it and really just a bunch of biased opinions. You know there was a Ph.D geophysicist here who chimed in with salient facts. You bunch of know nothings shot him down. He left the forum in disgust. So believe what you will. If a Geophysicist couldn't cause you to look at the data. I certainly wont try.
Well try a physics Nobel Prizewinner.
https://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobe...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever
At the bottom of this page you will also find this guy's letter of resignation from the American Physical Society because they effectively signed up all their members as agreeing to the theory of global warming caused by CO2.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2011/0...r-groups-promotion-of-manmade-global-warming/

When someone like that resigns from the APS over global warming, you would hope that someone would take an interest.

If you want to explore this in more detail, I can invite you to a PM discussion on the subject. I am wary about discussing this in the main forum because we tend to get blitzed by activists who post hundreds of items - absolutely no discussion.

David
 
Last edited:
#68
American Democracy is not even "White Western Culture" It is Native American - Iroquois.

Passed by the US Congress in 1988:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/hconres331/text
H.Con.Res. 331 (100th): A concurrent resolution to acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution
...
Oct 21, 1988 (Passed Congress)
...
Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including, most
notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known
to have greatly admired the concepts of the Six Nations of the
Iroquois Confederacy;
Whereas the confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into
one republic was influenced by the political system developed by
the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic prin-
ciples which were incorporated into the Constitution itself;
...
(1) the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth
anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution,
acknowledges the contribution made by the Iroquois Confed-
eracy and other Indian Nations to the formation and develop-
ment of the United States;
 
#69
Because there is a cost/benefit analysis for everything and the cost is jobs for workers who have children to clothe, house, feed, send to college. Economic growth helps poor people most - it provides more jobs, better wages and benefits when there is a labor shortage.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/usa-meets-kyoto-protocol-without-ever-embracing-it/
USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it​
...​
In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.​
In case anyone is wondering, I care about the environment. I am an activist environmentalist and conservationist. I have done more to protect the environment than most liberals. I have filed reports multiple times about pollution with the appropriate authorities that has led to cleanups. Filing those reports involved substantial amounts of time collecting data. I personally don't produce as much pollution as others: I've spent thousands of dollars increasing the energy efficiency of my condominium, I don't own a car, I haven't flown in 20 years, I live in a multi-unit structure which is more energy efficient to heat than a single family home, and I use window fans instead of air conditioners despite high summer temperatures where I live.

But I also care about people and I do not support government regulations that have very little benefit to the environment that produce a large cost to people struggling to survive.

Policies proposed by climate change alarmists will fall most heavily on the poor. Higher energy costs hurt the poor. Restrictions on inexpensive fossil fuels will prevent people in developing countries from attaining the standard of living (nutrition, health, education, longevity) that we take for granted in the West.

The wealthiest countries (those that have experienced the most economic growth) can best afford to take care of the environment. It is in developing countries where people are struggling to survive that they have higher priorities than the environment. This is another reason I favor policies that promote economic growth: to protect the environment.

I love nature and have spent many hours in the woods and at ponds doing nature and wildlife photography - I want to see the environment protected in ways that actually do good rather than just make some people feel good.
 
Last edited:
#71
Well either Hillary or Obama - both I suppose - decided on the covert war in Syria and the attack on Libya. I know there is a uranium sale scandal, but I don't really know the details. Hillary also stated that she wanted to intensify the war in Syria if she got elected. I can't see how she can be excused responsibility for any of that.


Well try a physics Nobel Prizewinner.
https://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobe...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever
At the bottom of this page you will also find this guy's letter of resignation from the American Physical Society because they effectively signed up all their members as agreeing to the theory of global warming caused by CO2.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2011/0...r-groups-promotion-of-manmade-global-warming/

When someone like that resigns from the APS over global warming, you would hope that someone would take an interest.

If you want to explore this in more detail, I can invite you to a PM discussion on the subject. I am wary about discussing this in the main forum because we tend to get blitzed by activists who post hundreds of items - absolutely no discussion.

David
If you stated your support for Trump was solely based on his positions on avoiding large conflicts then kudos. Thats not your sole Trump support position.

There's crazy news out of the White House daily. So lets take a look at today. Even though Bolton was a known war hawk. Trump still picked him. Why? Was it stable genius or placating his Nationalist base. News is Bolton was strongly against the Camp David meeting which Trump apparently pulled out of his ass without consultation. Now theres confusion why Trump would invite 5 Taliban leaders to Camp David on the eve of 9/11.

Yesterday it was Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross threatened NOAA employees not to contradict Trump on his sharpie alteration of hurricane Dorians direction. This strikes me as batshit crazy for the president of the USA.
Segway

Climate change is occurring. Theres no longer a debate. Now whether its human caused is what is still debated. Just because your neighborhood weather is the same as it was 20 years ago is not what researchers look at.
 
#72
In case anyone is wondering, I care about the environment. I am an activist environmentalist and conservationist. I have done more to protect the environment than most liberals. I have filed reports multiple times about pollution with the appropriate authorities that has led to cleanups. Filing those reports involved substantial amounts of time collecting data. I personally don't produce as much pollution as others: I've spent thousands of dollars increasing the energy efficiency of my condominium, I don't own a car, I haven't flown in 20 years, I live in a multi-unit structure which is more energy efficient to heat than a single family home, and I use window fans instead of air conditioners despite high summer temperatures where I live.

But I also care about people and I do not support government regulations that have very little benefit to the environment that produce a large cost to people struggling to survive.

Policies proposed by climate change alarmists will fall most heavily on the poor. Higher energy costs hurt the poor. Restrictions on inexpensive fossil fuels will prevent people in developing countries from attaining the standard of living (nutrition, health, education, longevity) that we take for granted in the West.

The wealthiest countries (those that have experienced the most economic growth) can best afford to take care of the environment. It is in developing countries where people are struggling to survive that they have higher priorities than the environment. This is another reason I favor policies that promote economic growth: to protect the environment.

I love nature and have spent many hours in the woods and at ponds doing nature and wildlife photography - I want to see the environment protected in ways that actually do good rather than just make some people feel good.
OK lets say it's true. Shouldn't I support a government which works towards renewable less polluting energy sources? Trumps a coal and oil guy. Look at Germany https://www.renewableenergyworld.co...rcent-of-energy-from-renewables-in-march.html
 
#73
American Democracy is not even "White Western Culture" It is Native American - Iroquois.

Passed by the US Congress in 1988:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/hconres331/text
H.Con.Res. 331 (100th): A concurrent resolution to acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution
...
Oct 21, 1988 (Passed Congress)
...
Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including, most
notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known
to have greatly admired the concepts of the Six Nations of the
Iroquois Confederacy;
Whereas the confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into
one republic was influenced by the political system developed by
the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic prin-
ciples which were incorporated into the Constitution itself;
...
(1) the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth
anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution,
acknowledges the contribution made by the Iroquois Confed-
eracy and other Indian Nations to the formation and develop-
ment of the United States;
Excuse me, I have to laugh at this. Yes, the Iroquois 5 nations had the world's longest and oldest democracy in a sense. Right before my ancestors stole their land. That was on my fathers side. My mother was an poor immigrant who couldnt speak English.
Trumps asylum and immigration policies are xenophobic and racist to say the least. Stephen Miller is pushing to reduce legal immigration to 10% of previous numbers. Im glad my mom made it when America was accepting poor immigrants. By the way, I read Melania lied about having a university degree. Can we still deport her? When I accuse my white friends and family of fear and racism its because I had those feelings myself. Listen and read Trump speeches. Its all there. ( my apologies for posting a liberal news source, but is it valid. Yeah its citing actual events)
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...dangerous-racialization-crime-u-s-news-media/

As to native Americans, for the last couple years the Dakota Sioux tried to keep the US from putting the Keystone oil pipeline out of their land. Trump sent in the troops. Native Americans in Dakota were denied voting rights. Republicans did their best to deny them. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nor...law-blocks-populations-vote/story?id=58912062
Just for shits and giggles half of all Nobel Prize winners in the US the last two years were immigrants.
 
#75
Are these wise words of caution from Charles Eisenstein? I think he’s probably worth listening to.
I think he is worth listening to, but here's my response:

Though there might well be climate "fundamentalists" who would sacrifice everything and anything to drive down carbon in the atmosphere, I don't know of anyone at that level, and I am skeptical that this is anything other than a straw man. He gave the example of the bear whose scratches on trees ultimately lead to carbon sequestration: but is anybody actually arguing that we need to sacrifice bears on the altar of carbon reduction, and if so, on what basis are they arguing for it? I just don't understand what this example is supposed to prove. From my perspective, there is a place for reducing carbon along with other sensible measures to protect and preserve the ecosystem, and I think most environmentalists would take a similar perspective. I don't really recognise this fundamentalism to which he refers, at least insofar as it leads to sacrifices which we ought not to make. Then again, I'm a bit of a hermit, so maybe I just haven't been exposed to it enough?
 
#76
There's crazy news out of the White House daily. So lets take a look at today. Even though Bolton was a known war hawk. Trump still picked him. Why? Was it stable genius or placating his Nationalist base. News is Bolton was strongly against the Camp David meeting which Trump apparently pulled out of his ass without consultation. Now theres confusion why Trump would invite 5 Taliban leaders to Camp David on the eve of 9/11.
I think that Trump has had to do a lot of ducking and weaving because he had warmongers like Bolton on one side and the Dems on the other. The Dems seemed far more interested in opposing Trump than even issues of war and peace.

So I think he took on Bolton to shut him up, and maybe try to scare NK and Iran into being a bit more cooperative. I admit my heart sank at first when Bolton came on board, but actually I would have done better to trust in Trump's judgement. Likewise, my heart sank when he ordered those attacks on Syria after the fake gas attacks. He shut up the warmongers by sounding even more fiery then them, but actually the attacks were calculated to do minimal damage and didn't kill anyone - or maybe one person, I am not sure. Above all they did not escallate into a new conflict. Remarkably, he pulled this stunt twice, and Syria seems to be approaching a state of total peace at last. Contrast that with what Hillary had planned.

As regards the Taliban, I think Trump realises that if you want to negotiate your way out of war or potential war, you have to appear at least friendly to the other side. The line of thought that says you should impose conditions before talks even start is basically silly - but very convenient for anyone who actually wants a conflict. I don't know more of the precise details about this particular incident.

David
 
#77
The US is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.
Jim! Seriously? Gerrymandering, voter suppression, politicians having to fund raise from lobbyists etc. It is true that the US is less corrupt than most - but its not among the least corrupt. Check it out on line - the US ranks #22 [down 4 points]- beaten by Canada [9], but you are ahead of Mexico [138]. Australia is at #13 - and that's bad for us because new Zealand is #2, just shaded by Denmark.

Okay, so 22 out of 180 isn't too bad - but the US styles itself as the 'leader of the free world' - so it should be in the top 5.
 
#78
Though there might well be climate "fundamentalists" who would sacrifice everything and anything to drive down carbon in the atmosphere, I don't know of anyone at that level, and I am skeptical that this is anything other than a straw man. He gave the example of the bear whose scratches on trees ultimately lead to carbon sequestration: but is anybody actually arguing that we need to sacrifice bears on the altar of carbon reduction, and if so, on what basis are they arguing for it? I just don't understand what this example is supposed to prove
I’m not really able to express what I mean, or even attempt to explain what Eisensein meant. However I maybe get the slightest whiff of what he’s on about. I know practically nothing about the climate change debate, but I know a little bit more about the vaccine one. I’ll attempt to go down that path.

I have little doubt that most of the ‘fundamentalists’ in the Vaccine debate are on the side of the mainstream. There is a powerful media wall that is almost impenetrable to penetrate if you have an opinion, even a very expert one, that goes against the mainstream dogma.

Unfortunately, the huge money that the vaccine manufacturers have at their disposal, has propagandised the whole western world into believing almost religiously that vaccines are ‘necessary, safe and effective’.

There is no doubt that they have been successful in certain areas. However I feel that this success has led to a dangerous exaggeration which has been fed by the media. Maybe that is simply my sceptical nature.

In any event, perhaps the story of the bear scratching the tree might be equated to the ignorance of our ‘blast ahead’ scientists who ignore the cautionary voices that try to warn them to slow down. Climate is a hugely complex subject that I suspect we really have only the beginnings of an understanding of. Viruses, germs and our interaction with nature may be at a similar stage. We probably know less than we think we know.

I think we should try to hold back and tread carefully before we allow fear and arrogance to build another inpenetrable wall.
 
#79
I think that Trump has had to do a lot of ducking and weaving because he had warmongers like Bolton on one side and the Dems on the other. The Dems seemed far more interested in opposing Trump than even issues of war and peace.

So I think he took on Bolton to shut him up, and maybe try to scare NK and Iran into being a bit more cooperative. I
Bolton says he quit because T was too crazy and erratic. Remember he picked Bolton in the first place - so you can't really say T was ducking and weaving because Bolton is a warmonger. They had radical disagreements over 'policy' - T's brain farts like inviting the Taliban to Camp David seem to have been the last straw. I mean WTF was T thinking? His own thought bubble - with no consultation - and planning the visit on the eve of 9/11.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Taliban are completely misrepresented in US military mythology, it was a dumb move. There's nothing to negotiate - just leave. The Taliban don't recognize the Kabul government and that's none of our business. The US wants the Taliban to promise not to host any more Bin Ladens and the Taliban want the US gone. Any promise wouldn't be worth the paper its printed on - but you really wouldn't imagine a liberation army wanting to piss the US off again any time soon.

Cooler heads in the US military say just leave - but then T wouldn't get a photo op.

I am not sure what you mean by "The Dems seemed far more interested in opposing Trump than even issues of war and peace." I think it is a mistake to make this a D v R affair. Trump has branded the Republicans with a big fat T, and they know that they have to decide whether they are okay with that or not - and a lot are not.

But of course the Ds are about opposing T. They absolutely believe he is unfit as POTUS, as did many Rs before he was elected. The debate over Ts fitness is white hot and bitter. Even conservative commentators are talking about T's "movement" and whether the Rs are going to all get on board. There is emerging talk about a R backlash against T - but its too early to say how substantial this might turn out to be. Number crunchers - using 2016 and 2018 voting analytics are not seeing good news for the Rs or T.

There is no doubt that T's poll defying performance in 2016 has spooked a lot of folk - in fact polls are proving less and less reliable - so nobody is prepared to say T's lousy polls numbers mean squat at this stage. Deeper analyses of voting analytics and demographic trends suggest that Rs are in danger - if not in 2020, then the next round in 2024.

So T has plenty to keep him worried about 2020- ducking and weaving - and it would help him and his allies no end if he would just stop shooting himself in the foot with a semi-automatic.

As I listen to the D hopefuls I would not say they have no interest in war and peace - and the same can be said for the few who dare go against T. I think the Ds are the least of T worries. They are famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In fact one seasoned US political observer noted that Clinton was the only D that Trump would have defeated in 2016. I don't know enough to agree, but it is clear that was so intent on being the first female president [as if the first black president actually paved the way for her] she made catastrophic strategic choices during her campaign, as well as dumb mistakes. It was said that Clinton and Trump were the 2 least like presidential candidates in US history.

One of my US friends said he voted for Clinton with regret - and that sentiment seems to have been echoed on both sides. But in 2020, despite the T boosters claims to the contrary, now he is a known quantity, many who voted T in 2016 are not likely to do so in 2020. T is aware of this. Hence he needs The Wall. That causes all kinds of problems - as will become painfully evident in coming months - and that is mostly why he is ducking and weaving now.

You can be guaranteed that T's campaign war room is crunching the numbers and not liking what they see. As things stand right now T's prospects for 2020 do no look good. His side won't say this and the Ds dare not - still spooked by the polls. Everybody is scared.

Just for the record, I have been a political junkie for decades. Ordinarily I do not give a fig who wins - but this time I care a bit. I have a bias against T on fitness for office only - not his politics. I am not pro D or anti R. For me T represents a moral watershed for the US. Its a massive one. It is about whether 'Europeans' are going to be running the show or not. In my view they are on a hiding to nothing on demographic trends -and I get the freak out. The US may not be the first country to have 3 waves of 'ethnic' dominance, but it will be the most significant in modern times.

I have no concern one way or the other. The world is warming, whether we like it or not, and our demographics are going the same way. It is a fascinating phenomenon to observe.
 
#80
Bolton says he quit because T was too crazy and erratic. Remember he picked Bolton in the first place - so you can't really say T was ducking and weaving because Bolton is a warmonger. They had radical disagreements over 'policy' - T's brain farts like inviting the Taliban to Camp David seem to have been the last straw. I mean WTF was T thinking? His own thought bubble - with no consultation - and planning the visit on the eve of 9/11.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Taliban are completely misrepresented in US military mythology, it was a dumb move. There's nothing to negotiate - just leave. The Taliban don't recognize the Kabul government and that's none of our business. The US wants the Taliban to promise not to host any more Bin Ladens and the Taliban want the US gone. Any promise wouldn't be worth the paper its printed on - but you really wouldn't imagine a liberation army wanting to piss the US off again any time soon.

Cooler heads in the US military say just leave - but then T wouldn't get a photo op.
All I can say, is that I completely disagree. Of course they had radical disagreements over policy because Bolton is a warmonger (do you disagree with that assessment).

As regards inviting the Taliban to Camp David, it was a peaceful gesture that conceded nothing, and it might have worked - indeed it possibly still might after a decent interval.

As for promises not being worth the paper, well taken to extreme that philosophy would mean that every war would be fought until total victory or total defeat (as in Vietnam). Any negotiation is fraught with that question, can we believe them? Even if they had desisted from attacking over the last few months, would that have necessarily meant that they were willing to abide by an agreement? It sounds as though you have been soaking up the Bolton philosophy!

I guess the best solution would be to give the Taliban something of value that could be taken back if they started to misbehave again.

David
 
Top