Trump Consciousness

Your problem is that you perpetually want to assign sinister motives to the US.
Not at all. I actually like Americans. But if by the US you mean your government - not always, but I confess often. You may be okay with it, but you don't live out side the US. I mean its natural for the US to act in its own interests and I don't begrudge it that. But what it thinks is in your interests isn't necessarily in mine.
You guys are big, armed to the teeth, and now you are run by what I and half the planet thinks is a nut job. We have to take you guys seriously, and never relax - you are benign when our interests align and flaming dangerous when they do not. The Australian government figures that overall going with the US has an overall benefit, but that doesn't mean we citizens agree.

I do not think the US has "sinister" motives - just self-interested ones that can be harmful to others.
 
You want to believe that these people would leave us a lone if we left them alone. History says you are dead wrong. Observe the invasions and occupations of Spain and Eastern Europe. Islam hasn't changed a bit since then.
Actually I don't think that. But do please remember the Crusades. But let's separate religion from nations and empires. It was Europeans who, in recent times, invaded Islamic homelands - to take their oil. The extent to which those Europeans were more than nominally Christian is an untested question. But it would be wrong to blame Christianity for doing the invading.

It is probably reasonable to assert that the West sorted itself out when it figured that internal division and conflict was mutually destructive. I don't think Islam has gotten to that stage - mind you the West is working hard to ensure that it doesn't - because a united Islamic bloc could be a problem.

I am not a fan of the Abrahamic faith tradition religions generally. They all have a sense of entitlement and imagined moral superiority that can get out of control if exploited by cunning people of low moral character and bucket loads of ambition. The modernist distortions of Christianity and Islam in particular are very worrying - they see they have their backs to the wall and are defending against a rising tide inimical to their values. Their solution is to invoke extreme responses as defiant and transformative gestures.

We can object to Islamic terrorism as the manipulation of the vulnerable in service of dark ends, but let us weigh that against the Christians who crave Israel engaging in an end of times conflagration that will usher in the return of Christ - and see that as a kind of deranged suicidal act that imperils fa remora than those who just happen to be with the blast radius of a suicide bomb.

You may assert that Islam has not changed - except that the invasion of Spain and Eastern Europe was empire building - and now it is about defending turf and existential threat. The kind of aggression has changed - now it is frequently asymmetrical - just like the Russians actually.

This is the paradox of being so armed to the teeth. The US has invested so much in conventional weaponry nobody wants to take it one toe to toe. So you get what is politically called terrorism (because that masks the fact that defence against it very difficult).

You have to look at the history of the evolution of Christianity to understand that what we fear in Islam was once feared in Christianity - an extreme moral critique rooted in deep existential fear that led to murder and terrorising of those thought to be a threat.

I am not pro Islam. I am pro not getting sucked into misrepresenting motive to serve political agendas and not employing dimwitted macho solutions concocted by screwed up hawks with equally screwed up religious motives.

There is a problem that requires a solution. But the people who see the problems are not necessarily the people who have the best solutions. This is an eternal problem with politics. Solutions cost money and that means there is profit to be made and fame to be won. Politicians are fine for saying there is a problem but awful at analysing it and coming up with a solution. Were it otherwise we'd not be in the mess we are in. We are told the problems we have are because they are huge and the people involved are bad [or whatever] - and that's almost never the case. We mostly have the wrong people devising and delivering the solutions - on both sides of the political divide.
 
Actually I don't think that. But do please remember the Crusades. But let's separate religion from nations and empires. It was Europeans who, in recent times, invaded Islamic homelands - to take their oil. The extent to which those Europeans were more than nominally Christian is an untested question. But it would be wrong to blame Christianity for doing the invading.

It is probably reasonable to assert that the West sorted itself out when it figured that internal division and conflict was mutually destructive. I don't think Islam has gotten to that stage - mind you the West is working hard to ensure that it doesn't - because a united Islamic bloc could be a problem.

I am not a fan of the Abrahamic faith tradition religions generally. They all have a sense of entitlement and imagined moral superiority that can get out of control if exploited by cunning people of low moral character and bucket loads of ambition. The modernist distortions of Christianity and Islam in particular are very worrying - they see they have their backs to the wall and are defending against a rising tide inimical to their values. Their solution is to invoke extreme responses as defiant and transformative gestures.

We can object to Islamic terrorism as the manipulation of the vulnerable in service of dark ends, but let us weigh that against the Christians who crave Israel engaging in an end of times conflagration that will usher in the return of Christ - and see that as a kind of deranged suicidal act that imperils fa remora than those who just happen to be with the blast radius of a suicide bomb.

You may assert that Islam has not changed - except that the invasion of Spain and Eastern Europe was empire building - and now it is about defending turf and existential threat. The kind of aggression has changed - now it is frequently asymmetrical - just like the Russians actually.

This is the paradox of being so armed to the teeth. The US has invested so much in conventional weaponry nobody wants to take it one toe to toe. So you get what is politically called terrorism (because that masks the fact that defence against it very difficult).

You have to look at the history of the evolution of Christianity to understand that what we fear in Islam was once feared in Christianity - an extreme moral critique rooted in deep existential fear that led to murder and terrorising of those thought to be a threat.

I am not pro Islam. I am pro not getting sucked into misrepresenting motive to serve political agendas and not employing dimwitted macho solutions concocted by screwed up hawks with equally screwed up religious motives.

There is a problem that requires a solution. But the people who see the problems are not necessarily the people who have the best solutions. This is an eternal problem with politics. Solutions cost money and that means there is profit to be made and fame to be won. Politicians are fine for saying there is a problem but awful at analysing it and coming up with a solution. Were it otherwise we'd not be in the mess we are in. We are told the problems we have are because they are huge and the people involved are bad [or whatever] - and that's almost never the case. We mostly have the wrong people devising and delivering the solutions - on both sides of the political divide.
The crusades? Really? You have to go back that far? Come on man. Besides, the crusades can be interpreted, fairly, as a defensive action to protect Christians from Muslims.

Anyhow......I think you are missing something very key in all of this - and it gets back to Trump.

All of these wars of choice and the associated big military budget are leftist in nature and in cause. I have told you before - though you didn't believe me - that all of that is ideological at root.

People like you want to see it all as economic (very shallow and naïve thinking). It isn't. There is ample opportunity for pork/graft/cronyism in any large govt project. Green energy has the same opportunity as contracting for missiles. Yes, Eisenhower mentioned the military industrial complex. So what? That just happened to be the lobby that was getting the money at his time. There are other lobbies and there are lobbies that could easily grow to that size over night if the ideology driving decision making changed.

The MIC is leftist as are the other potential big lobbies. They believe that government can force change on people. They seek to use the govt to impose a world order and a way of life on its "subjects". That is Leftist. Leftist ideology really isn't about helping the poor and needy. It never does that in the end. It's all about POWER. What is the difference between Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Franco and a medieval king? None.

It just so happens that the US, being the wealthiest and biggest, gets to play the role of "leader" in this strategy. Your tiny nation, and other runts like Canada, the UK and much of Europe are totally on board and, if you noticed, offer support to the extent that they can, whenever the US asks for it.

Trump is an isolationist and a govt minimalist. He stands in opposition to all of the wars of choice, regime change, etc. That is why - they they being people in power - really and truly detest the man. People in power include the govts of all of the aforementioned runt countries. Masses of useful idiots get on board the hate train with propaganda about illegal alien, homosexuals coming under attack and other BS. Most all media these days is propaganda. Even Fox news. Notice that when it comes to foreign policy all of the sudden there is no daylight between CNN and Fox. It's one big Leftist ideology borg. This is what you must understand if you are to understand and comment intelligently.

What is ironic is that you are actually siding with the people you claim to dislike - the globalists/interventionist/war all the time crowd because you are a dupe that has bought the crap they sell. Some of that know better are willing to put up with Trump's eccentricities because he is the only non-interventionist game in town - and he's working out quite well for the economy. There are no other viable non-interventionist players because they have all been run out of town.

That is the "insider" perspective on Trump. Now you can tell me what your interventionist and/or useful idiot "sources" have to say.

Personally, I consider peace and a good economy as outweighing a stiffed contractor. Maybe you don't mind a few hundred thousand dead or dismembered foreigners as long as someone "nice" is in the White House. You tell me who we could have voted for that was for the former and against the latter. I sure didn't see it.

I f'ing hate Leftists. You?
 
Last edited:
Some quotes from Trump:
Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake...George Bush made a mistake...Obviously we can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty...
We should have never been in Iraq. They lied, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none.
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...69410-trump-on-bush-going-into-iraq-they-lied
Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis. … Take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents
When Bill O’Reilly demanded to know what Trump thought about Vladimir Putin being a killer, Trump responded: “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” On an earlier occasion when asked about Putin, Trump similarly remarked that “I think our country does plenty of killing also.”
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/21/thanksgiving-donald-trump-lies-honest-president/
 
Keith Preston presents his own - intelligent and insightful as always - analysis of the Trump's foreign policy:

https://attackthesystem.com/2019/09...mps-foreign-policy-not-consistent-us-analyst/

Well, he is Libertarian / Anarchic Leftist (like me, Steve, Laird...) , and this, I suspect, will immediately spark the flames of antipathy in Eric and his fellow-minded people here. Yet, he (again, as much as me, Steve, Laird...) is a very (self-)critical and (self-)reflective type of Lib / Anarch Leftie, and his perspective are worthy of consideration for everyone who tend to be pro-freedom and anti-Empire / anti-war (which, I think, is characteristic of most people here... well, not sure for you, Eric), no matter where they find themselves on a Left / Right scale.

P.S. Put a special attention at the reminder that Trump is probably the most enthusiastically Israel-serving and Saudi-serving POTUS ever. Sadly, he is.
 
Last edited:
Keith Preston presents his own - intelligent and insightful as always - analysis of the Trump's foreign policy:

https://attackthesystem.com/2019/09...mps-foreign-policy-not-consistent-us-analyst/

Well, he is Libertarian / Anarchic Leftist (like me, Steve, Laird...) , and this, I suspect, will immediately spark the flames of antipathy in Eric and his fellow-minded people here. Yet, he (again, as much as me, Steve, Laird...) is a very (self-)critical and (self-)reflective type of Lib / Anarch Leftie, and his perspective are worthy of consideration for everyone who tend to be pro-freedom and anti-Empire / anti-war (which, I think, is characteristic of most people here... well, not sure for you, Eric), no matter where they find themselves on a Left / Right scale.

P.S. Put a special attention at the reminder that Trump is probably the most enthusiastically Israel-serving and Saudi-serving POTUS ever. Sadly, he is.
I think that what this piece fails to take into account, is that Trump has had to weave between the following aims:


1) Following his own policy of using military power to frustrate aggressive regimes until they fall from within or become more reasonable. He clearly avoids military conflict except where absolutely necessary (ISIS).

2) The Dems who would like to attack him for anything and nothing. The latest idea is to shout "Trump is a racist" in the hope that someone will believe them!

3) Appeasing the aggressive element of the Republican party enough to avoid them really opposing him, and maybe even joining forces with the Dems. He has managed to achieve that without significant bloodshed. Bolton was probably only taken on board to kid the Neo-Cons that they were starting to make progress - though at first that worried me, and I am glad to see the back of him!

As Trump has consolidated his hold on the party and after the Mueller found nothing of note, he is becoming freer to follow his instincts - item 1.

Israel is a real problem, because I have come to realise that the Palestinians simply cannot/will not compromise on anything less that pushing Israel into the sea. I guess that given that, he is saying well so be it, if you don't want to talk we won't either. Notably, there seems to have been something of a lull in actual fighting between Israel and its enemies while Trump has been in power. Maybe he also applies some behind the scenes pressure?

As for Saudi Arabia, maybe he is baffled - what would you do if you were POTUS? That is a problem that has grown over successive governments of Democrat or Republican orientation.

David
 
Keith Preston presents his own - intelligent and insightful as always - analysis of the Trump's foreign policy:

https://attackthesystem.com/2019/09...mps-foreign-policy-not-consistent-us-analyst/

Well, he is Libertarian / Anarchic Leftist (like me, Steve, Laird...) , and this, I suspect, will immediately spark the flames of antipathy in Eric and his fellow-minded people here. Yet, he (again, as much as me, Steve, Laird...) is a very (self-)critical and (self-)reflective type of Lib / Anarch Leftie, and his perspective are worthy of consideration for everyone who tend to be pro-freedom and anti-Empire / anti-war (which, I think, is characteristic of most people here... well, not sure for you, Eric), no matter where they find themselves on a Left / Right scale.

P.S. Put a special attention at the reminder that Trump is probably the most enthusiastically Israel-serving and Saudi-serving POTUS ever. Sadly, he is.
I am anti-war unless my country is actually under attack. I am an isolationist to the extent possible.

Many people (you?) fail to understand that in an interconnected global economy, there may be causes for war other than bullets and missiles flying at your home town. Many take for granted the lifestyle they enjoy that is made possible by international trade. I would prefer to do business - as opposed to attacking -with whomever controls whatever is we need from a foreign land. However, that means doing business with dictators, killers of homosexuals, oppressors of women and other unsavory characters. Can you handle that? It's fine to say that you don't care. You'd grow your own food and use solar/wind, etc. But then you're asking a lot of your fellow citizens to change their lifestyle dramatically and to exist at a far lower standard of living. Most leftists cannot handle it. As I said, interventionists are almost exclusively Leftist.

You - and Michael - have a very cartoonish idea of people. It reflects your lack of exposure. Someone dedicated to protecting his country must be crazed warmonger. Spiritual people/Leftists are all peace loving and the results of their actions are utopia on earth. You couldn't be farther from the truth. The real warmongers come smiling with promises of aiding the distressed of the world.

My primary concern at this time is enemies of the Constitution within my country. These people are exclusively anti-Trump and pro-war.
 
Many people (you?) fail to understand that in an interconnected global economy, there may be causes for war other than bullets and missiles flying at your home town. Many take for granted the lifestyle they enjoy that is made possible by international trade. I would prefer to do business - as opposed to attacking -with whomever controls whatever is we need from a foreign land. However, that means doing business with dictators, killers of homosexuals, oppressors of women and other unsavory characters. Can you handle that? It's fine to say that you don't care. You'd grow your own food and use solar/wind, etc. But then you're asking a lot of your fellow citizens to change their lifestyle dramatically and to exist at a far lower standard of living. Most leftists cannot handle it. As I said, interventionists are almost exclusively Leftist.
Well, I'm not American, I'm Russian who lives in a country that, despite all its recently renewed imperial(istic) ambitions, suffer from a very weak economy and have a notable part of its population living in abject poverty. Happily for me, I'm definitely not poor and can maintain a a decent, satisfactory standart of living - which, however, I suspect, would still be classified as "not far from poverty" by the standards of the USA or European Union.

Yet even this weak state are incomparable to the economic collapse that Russians have endured in the 1990s, when the country became opened for the international trade. Instead of prosperity (as many had hoped), it brought the most horrid form of wild, unrestrained, dog-eats-dog capitalism that left most people starving (and a very few turning super-rich). The horror of the extreme mass poverty (combined with unprincipled, gangster-style enrichment of the lucky few) was so strong that a bright side that the 1990s did have - the incomparably high spiritual, cultural and social freedom - was enthusiastically sacrificed for the promise of economic stability given by Putin in the early 2000s.

Now, despite all the sactions, Russian economy is still a part of the international one. It works largely by selling its resourses to the West... yet nearly all the profit from it are in the pockets of the the already-rich-and-powerful, and a large part of the population has to count every rouble to survive.

So. global capitalism is far from being a great force of prosperity - while it gives the riches to its leaders, it leaves many people poor, if not starving - and at a mercy of authoritarian and reactionary regimes, most of that are supported and defended by the American Empire.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm not American, I'm Russian who lives in a country that, despite all its recently renewed imperial(istic) ambitions, suffer from a very weak economy and have a notable part of its population living in abject poverty. Happily for me, I'm definitely not poor and can maintain a a decent, satisfactory standart of living - which, however, I suspect, would still be classified as "not far from poverty" by the standards of the USA or European Union.

Yet even this weak state are incomparable to the economic collapse that Russians have endured in the 1990s, when the country became opened for the international trade. Instead of prosperity (as many had hoped), it brought the most horrid form of wild, unrestrained, dog-eats-dog capitalism that left most people starving (and a very few turning super-rich). The horror of the extreme mass poverty (combined with unprincipled, gangster-style enrichment of the lucky few) was so strong that a bright side that the 1990s did have - the incomparably high spiritual, cultural and social freedom - was enthusiastically sacrificed for the promise of economic stability given by Putin in the early 2000s.

Now, despite all the sactions, Russian economy is still a part of the international one. It works largely by selling its resourses to the West... yet nearly all the profit from it are in the pockets of the the already-rich-and-powerful, and a large part of the population has to count every rouble to survive.

So. global capitalism is far from being a great force of prosperity - while it gives the riches to its leaders, it leaves many people poor, if not starving - and at a mercy of authoritarian and reactionary regimes, most of that are supported and defended by the American Empire.
Global capitalism has definitely raised the standard of living quite a bit. For every last person? No, of course not, but over all? Absolutely.

I like Russia and Russians. Our brand of Leftists/government elites/globalists hate Russia. While the fall of the Soviet Union could have been excellent for Russia, our elites have put a boot on Russia's neck. Now Russia partly screwed up by letting a "wild West" develop with oligarchs and all of that, though Putin seems to have gotten that down to a dull roar. That's part of the reason Russia did not soar to new heights of prosperity after 1991. There are other internal cultural reasons after decades of soul crushing socialism.

However, the US/Euro + other English speakers seek to keep Russia down because they crave power. They have a wet dream of being a hegemony with regards to world power. They hate that Russia could be a counter force.

Like I said already, those who seek to use government as a power source are legion. They couch their quest for power in terms of aiding the down trodden, the oppressed. They bribe by spreading gifts and promising freedom from the challenges of life. Fools believe it. The devil usually doesn't reveal himself as what he really is. He seduces with promises of easy gain, free stuff. At the end of the day, these people are all closet dictators. Rare is the man (or woman) who enters government service at higher levels - where policy is formed and implemented - purely for selfless reasons.

What people don't get about Trump is that he's somewhat above that. He already has money and power. Yes. His ego is big and requires feeding, and, oddly, that is a plus. His greatest trophy would be to genuinely make America great. That is a character flaw, but it works in favor of US citizens and, probably, for the rest of the world. He has tied his personal success to the success of all of us. Works for me. Sure better than globalist/elitist/war monger/power crazed Clinton.

Interesting that you're an anarchist, but then you complain about anarchy - which is what Russia became circa 1991. It sure didn't resemble free markets as we in the West understand the concept. Anarchy only works for those who are the biggest and most competent wolves in the valley. I always chuckle when I see the scrawny weaklings that proclaim to be anarchists in the US. Works in their fantasies in their mothers' basements, but in the real world, they'd be wiped out in the first week of anarchy. Stupid people.
 
Last edited:
he is Libertarian / Anarchic Leftist (like me, Steve, Laird...)
Just a small note: I don't identify as a libertarian or an anarchist - and I don't have much of a fixed position in general, though I am broadly more left than right (with exceptions such as being pro life).
 
Just a small note: I don't identify as a libertarian or an anarchist - and I don't have much of a fixed position in general, though I am broadly more left than right (with exceptions such as being pro life).
Thanks for clarification, Laird, and sorry for this unintentional mischaracterisation - I should have just said that your position is definitely much closer to mine (and Steve's) than to Eric's.

And when I describe myself as "Lib / Anarch Leftie", I also didn't mean some kind of dogmatic list of positions - as you yourself know, my views include the ones that might make me quite unpopular among many hardcore Lib-Left types - such as doubts about anthropogenic global warming model(s).
 
Interesting that you're an anarchist, but then you complain about anarchy - which is what Russia became circa 1991. It sure didn't resemble free markets as we in the West understand the concept. Anarchy only works for those who are the biggest and most competent wolves in the valley. I always chuckle when I see the scrawny weaklings that proclaim to be anarchists in the US. Works in their fantasies in their mothers' basements, but in the real world, they'd be wiped out in the first week of anarchy. Stupid people.
In fact, it is my growing up during the 1990s, combined with my inborn tendency to rebelliousness and liberty, that made me an anarchist. I loved the freedom that I experienced then, despite all the problems and dangers that accompanied it.

Contrary to what is commonly thought, anarchism is no utopia: destruction of state won't bring an immediate paradise. It will even bring many problems that the state, with all its ugliness, more-or-less kept at bay - such as violent conflict between with people professing radically differing worldviews.

So, we'll have to find ways to resolve them.

Since, despite all the pains and threats that will accompany the transition to the stateless society, they are worth enduring - for the sake of freedom and dignity that are valuable in themselves, and that otherwise would be perpetually supressed by the state authority. It is a question of fundamental values and free spirit, rather than of pragmatic benefits and comfort. (That's why anarchists are always spiritualistic, transcendentalist types, even if they sincerely believe themselves to be hardcore materialists and atheists.)

And, BTW, such is the case with all radical social transformations - they were always achieved by idealism and willfulness, rather by a careful calculation of costs and benefits: the results of such calculations would have always been against them.

If the history teaches us anything, this is it: on the long run, the conflict between idealism and cynicism is invariably won by the former, not the latter.
 
Last edited:
Global capitalism has definitely raised the standard of living quite a bit. For every last person? No, of course not, but over all? Absolutely.

I like Russia and Russians. Our brand of Leftists/government elites/globalists hate Russia. While the fall of the Soviet Union could have been excellent for Russia, our elites have put a boot on Russia's neck. Now Russia partly screwed up by letting a "wild West" develop with oligarchs and all of that, though Putin seems to have gotten that down to a dull roar. That's part of the reason Russia did not soar to new heights of prosperity after 1991. There are other internal cultural reasons after decades of soul crushing socialism.

However, the US/Euro + other English speakers seek to keep Russia down because they crave power. They have a wet dream of being a hegemony with regards to world power. They hate that Russia could be a counter force.

Like I said already, those who seek to use government as a power source are legion. They couch their quest for power in terms of aiding the down trodden, the oppressed. They bribe by spreading gifts and promising freedom from the challenges of life. Fools believe it. The devil usually doesn't reveal himself as what he really is. He seduces with promises of easy gain, free stuff. At the end of the day, these people are all closet dictators. Rare is the man (or woman) who enters government service at higher levels - where policy is formed and implemented - purely for selfless reasons.

What people don't get about Trump is that he's somewhat above that. He already has money and power. Yes. His ego is big and requires feeding, and, oddly, that is a plus. His greatest trophy would be to genuinely make America great. That is a character flaw, but it works in favor of US citizens and, probably, for the rest of the world. He has tied his personal success to the success of all of us. Works for me. Sure better than globalist/elitist/war monger/power crazed Clinton.

Interesting that you're an anarchist, but then you complain about anarchy - which is what Russia became circa 1991. It sure didn't resemble free markets as we in the West understand the concept. Anarchy only works for those who are the biggest and most competent wolves in the valley. I always chuckle when I see the scrawny weaklings that proclaim to be anarchists in the US. Works in their fantasies in their mothers' basements, but in the real world, they'd be wiped out in the first week of anarchy. Stupid people.
What is the definition of left vs right you are employing?
 
Israel is a real problem, because I have come to realise that the Palestinians simply cannot/will not compromise on anything less that pushing Israel into the sea. I guess that given that, he is saying well so be it, if you don't want to talk we won't either. Notably, there seems to have been something of a lull in actual fighting between Israel and its enemies while Trump has been in power. Maybe he also applies some behind the scenes pressure?
This is so misguided on so many levels.

Israel attacks three different countries including Iraq in a weekend recently!

“The attacks Saturday and Sunday targeted Iranian forces and their proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, in what appeared to be a significant escalation of Israeli efforts to contain the expansion of Iranian influence in the region that could jeopardize the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and draw Lebanon into a new war.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html?noredirect=on
 
This is so misguided on so many levels.

Israel attacks three different countries including Iraq in a weekend recently!
I think it is fair to say that no serious outbreaks of warfare have occurred in the last 3 years. Here is a nice graph of the numbers of people killed in the -Israel-Palestine dispute, and inconveniently it stops at 2014 - can anyone supply a more up-to-date graph?

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5898581/chart-israel-palestine-conflict-deaths

1568707920494.png


David
 
I think it is fair to say that no serious outbreaks of warfare have occurred in the last 3 years.
You must be having a feking laugh David.

Would you call the Irish troubles ‘serious’ for the UK? Was that warfare? When does it become serious? When thousands are being killed? Or maybe it’s only serious when Jews are attacked or killed, who cares about them? Because our media doesn’t report Israel’s crimes doesn’t mean that they’re not serious!
If it was any other country committing these crimes, you can bet your ass that they’d be ‘serious’. Especially if it were Russia or N Korea or any other convenient enemy.

What if you were locked up in an outside prison! What if it was your child that was shot, having their legs blown off with dum-dum bullets? Really think about that. How would you react?

“Forty Palestinians have been killed and 5,511 were wounded in the mass protests along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel since March 30, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported on Tuesday. The protests have been held every Friday since then.”
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...on-casualties-in-gaza-mass-protests-1.6030556
“Israeli occupation forces and settlers have killed 295 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza since the beginning of the year, according to a UN monitoring group.”
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/maureen-clare-murphy/nearly-300-palestinians-killed-29000-injured-2018
 
The crusades? Really? You have to go back that far? Come on man. Besides, the crusades can be interpreted, fairly, as a defensive action to protect Christians from Muslims.
Ha! The Moslems invaded Eastern Europe and Spain over 620 - 750. The first crusade was in 1096 - 1099. So who's going "back that far"?

And it was hardly a defensive action to protect Christians from Muslims. It was a campaign to liberate the Holy Land



Personally, I consider peace and a good economy as outweighing a stiffed contractor. Maybe you don't mind a few hundred thousand dead or dismembered foreigners as long as someone "nice" is in the White House. You tell me who we could have voted for that was for the former and against the latter. I sure didn't see it.
There is no doubt that many saw T as the least worse of two bad options - and that was a call they chose to make. Others, including Republicans, chose the other way.


I have some doubts that you will get 'peace and a good economy', but I sincerely hope you do. Worth a 'stiffed contractor'? If that was a one off you might have a case - but it is a single offence in an almost endless string - and that's a problem. T does not have a history of honouring deals or keeping promises. David Frum, GW Bush's speechwriter and a Republican, is only one of many Rs who do not agree that T is fit for the office of POTUS. They believe that T will not deliver either peace or a good economy - and if you don't agree please don't take it out on me - address your remarks to them - after becoming familiar with their arguments and evidence, of course.

I am not a fan of Ds any more than I am of Rs. T isn't the only opponent of witless endless wars. It is generally acknowledged that Rs are more hawkish than Ds, and that does seem evident in who T has in his inner circle.

My issue is not with your policy and political aspirations, rather that you think T is a fit person to deliver. There is not a shred of evidence in favour of this proposition outside the pro T bubble. And as an outsider looking askance at what the US is up to I am inclined to seek out the more reliable sources of information, rather than those that speak to my [non-existent] bias. That is to say I am largely centrist with a little leftist lean.

I f'ing hate Leftists. You?
No. I don't hate. I was strongly left leaning for quite some time - until it became evident that the left was hopeless in articulating a balanced POV, and there are some elements these days that are so loopy I am deeply saddened that they are called leftish by adherents. For me the worst of the left is its insistence on atheism. But saying that I have the same sense of disappointment with those on the right who claim to be religious.

I think either extreme is toxic and dangerous - either is vulnerable to manipulation by the power hungry and immoral.
 
Not just Bigfoot. 99% of "scientists" will tell you there's no life after death or psi.

I guess we should all just pack it in and get back to reality because 99% of scientists!
Eric don't forget science does some things very well, very well indeed. This here is one example, electronic communication. Creating models with math that predict outcomes is precisely what climatologists have been doing and continue to work on. So far the climate models are not exactly, but fairly accurate.
My issue is the other side is unwilling to investigate the vast counter argument. IMO its a mind set. We went through this with evolution of the species.
 
Top