Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Neil Howe: 'Civil War Is More Likely Than People Think'
#41
(11-19-2016, 11:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance  but yeah, it could be socialpathy.

What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#42
(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-19-2016, 11:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance  but yeah, it could be socialpathy.

What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.

As usual you demonstrate how little you know about anything.  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#43
(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-19-2016, 11:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance  but yeah, it could be socialpathy.

What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.

(Insult redacted).  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.

So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

Maybe Putin sees in Trump someone who might cause NATO to splinter. That always was a Soviet objective until the accession of Gorbachev... remember the KGB heritage of Vladimir Putin. Maybe he sees someone with whom he can relate as a dictator and kleptocrat, as a 'wimpy' leader like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would be. (Truth be told, I see Barack Obama as the worst sort of person an enemy hostile to the United States could have, the sort who hates war and solves the problem of by getting the war over as quickly as possible and will stop at nothing to that end). So what does Donald Trump get in return? Guidance on forming a secret police that can crush any dissent as did the old Soviet KGB? That is all that Donald Trump needs to maintain power for himself or his successors in an authoritarian America.

Maybe I have an excessively vivid imagination of how things can go wrong in Donald Trump's America.... but I have yet to see any indication from him that he has any respect for democracy in America. His economic ideology is Profits above All Human Cost, He has shown gross contempt for groups that voted 'wrong' in 2016. I understand political rhetoric well, and I know that vague slogans as "Make America Great Again" can hide all sorts of mischief in public policy. That;s how demagogues campaign, and demagogues who achieve power never get good results except for a few well-connected people.

I see signs of sociopathy, a danger in any activity.

It's not ideology. Had the Republican winner been Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Mitt Romney I would not have the same fears. The politician who imposes fear upon those who oppose or turn away from him is far more dangerous than someone with whom I have a simple disagreement on ideology or policy.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#44
(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-19-2016, 11:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance  but yeah, it could be socialpathy.

What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.

(Insult redacted).  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.

So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

I don't see that he does.  Even during the Cold War it was understood that provoking the Soviet Union was not a good idea.  It seems to me that the US lost its proxy war against Syria.  At this point, it seems the Trump is simply recognizing reality as it is.  It is equally possible that Trump regards ISIS as a bigger threat Russia.  Given Putin's desire to preseve Russia then this is not an unreasonable assessment.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#45
(11-21-2016, 06:05 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-19-2016, 11:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance  but yeah, it could be socialpathy.

What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.

(Insult redacted).  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.

So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

I don't see that he does.  Even during the Cold War it was understood that provoking the Soviet Union was not a good idea.  It seems to me that the US lost its proxy war against Syria.  At this point, it seems the Trump is simply recognizing reality as it is.  It is equally possible that Trump regards ISIS as a bigger threat Russia.  Given Putin's desire to preseve Russia then this is not an unreasonable assessment.

ISIS isn't manipulating US elections. Angry
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#46
(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-19-2016, 11:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance  but yeah, it could be socialpathy.

What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.

(Insult redacted).  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.

So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

The answer to the last is clear:  Putin doesn't want a nuclear war, and he thinks that with Clinton, a nuclear war is more likely.

Quote:It's not ideology. Had the Republican winner been Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Mitt Romney I would not have the same fears. The politician who imposes fear upon those who oppose or turn away from him is far more dangerous than someone with whom I have a simple disagreement on ideology or policy.

Democrats had their chance to vote for Romney in 2012.

As for Kasich and Bush, there it is a matter of ideology:  they're closer to Democrats than to Republicans, and Democrats who wanted them could have nominated them for Democratic candidate - or nominated Webb instead of Clinton.
Reply
#47
At this Putin is unwise. You want someone at an arm's length, and not someone likely to act as if a jilted lover.

I think that Putin thinks President Trump and the GOP majority far easier to blackmail at the opportune time. Maybe a little conflict between China and Russia? Like who takes over if North Korea goes belly-up or some former Soviet republic in central Asia chooses to get cozier with one or the other? Or perhaps snipping off a bit of Alaska?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#48
Yes, and I think Ukraine and Estonia are the most tempting Putin targets now. A scuffle between North and South Korea is probably the most dangerous and hottest hot spot in the world today. Add to that Russia's newly-freed hand in Syria, an unstable Iraq and Afghanistan, a potentially-nuclear Iran, a belligerent and tyrannical Israel, plus the refugee crisis certain to continue indefinitely and stir up more trouble and more EU exits, and Trump has many opportunities to help screw up world affairs.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#49
(11-21-2016, 09:55 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-19-2016, 11:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance  but yeah, it could be socialpathy.

What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.

(Insult redacted).  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.

So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

The answer to the last is clear:  Putin doesn't want a nuclear war, and he thinks that with Clinton, a nuclear war is more likely.

Quote:It's not ideology. Had the Republican winner been Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Mitt Romney I would not have the same fears. The politician who imposes fear upon those who oppose or turn away from him is far more dangerous than someone with whom I have a simple disagreement on ideology or policy.

Democrats had their chance to vote for Romney in 2012.

As for Kasich and Bush, there it is a matter of ideology:  they're closer to Democrats than to Republicans, and Democrats who wanted them could have nominated them for Democratic candidate - or nominated Webb instead of Clinton.

Rmoney, Bush and Kasich have the wrong policies, and Rmoney was also, like Trump, all about money and a flip-flopper on policy. They could never have been nominated by Democrats. Republicans today, including those three, are so far to the right nowadays that Democrats cannot work well with them much less nominate them. Kasich was more moderate, perhaps, but is easily swayed by the Republican majority in congress to tow the reactionary line.

The problem with Trump, is that he combines ludricrous right-wing policies with personal disqualifications and demagogic skills. The other three are regressive; Trump is dangerous.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#50
(11-21-2016, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 06:05 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.

(Insult redacted).  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.

So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

I don't see that he does.  Even during the Cold War it was understood that provoking the Soviet Union was not a good idea.  It seems to me that the US lost its proxy war against Syria.  At this point, it seems the Trump is simply recognizing reality as it is.  It is equally possible that Trump regards ISIS as a bigger threat Russia.  Given Putin's desire to preseve Russia then this is not an unreasonable assessment.

ISIS isn't manipulating US elections. Angry

-- true. That would be the DNC  Angry
Heart my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020 Heart
Reply
#51
(11-21-2016, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 06:05 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.

(Insult redacted).  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.

So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

I don't see that he does.  Even during the Cold War it was understood that provoking the Soviet Union was not a good idea.  It seems to me that the US lost its proxy war against Syria.  At this point, it seems the Trump is simply recognizing reality as it is.  It is equally possible that Trump regards ISIS as a bigger threat Russia.  Given Putin's desire to preserve Russia then this is not an unreasonable assessment.

ISIS isn't manipulating US elections. Angry

Right, and we lost our proxy war in Syria because we didn't fight it until it was too late with too little. On Nov.8 the USA simply gave in to Assad and gave up.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#52
(11-21-2016, 01:39 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 06:05 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote: (Insult redacted).  Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it.  Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them.  If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.

So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

I don't see that he does.  Even during the Cold War it was understood that provoking the Soviet Union was not a good idea.  It seems to me that the US lost its proxy war against Syria.  At this point, it seems the Trump is simply recognizing reality as it is.  It is equally possible that Trump regards ISIS as a bigger threat Russia.  Given Putin's desire to preseve Russia then this is not an unreasonable assessment.

ISIS isn't manipulating US elections. Angry

-- true. That would be the DNC  Angry

No, that would be the Russians  [Image: angry.png] (and the Republicans)
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#53
(11-21-2016, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rmoney, Bush and Kasich have the wrong policies, and Rmoney was also, like Trump, all about money and a flip-flopper on policy. They could never have been nominated by Democrats. Republicans today, including those three, are so far to the right nowadays that Democrats cannot work well with them much less nominate them. Kasich was more moderate, perhaps, but is easily swayed by the Republican majority in congress to tow the reactionary line.

Bush and Kasich were and are open borders advocates; that disqualifies them as far as the Republican electorate is concerned.  Immigration was the most important issue of this election and possibly of the remainder of the crisis period, at least until the crisis war; on this issue, Republicans are for less immigration and Democrats are for more immigration, as far as I can tell.
Reply
#54
(11-21-2016, 01:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:39 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 06:05 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?

I don't see that he does.  Even during the Cold War it was understood that provoking the Soviet Union was not a good idea.  It seems to me that the US lost its proxy war against Syria.  At this point, it seems the Trump is simply recognizing reality as it is.  It is equally possible that Trump regards ISIS as a bigger threat Russia.  Given Putin's desire to preseve Russia then this is not an unreasonable assessment.

ISIS isn't manipulating US elections. Angry

-- true. That would be the DNC  Angry

No, that would be the Russians  [Image: angry.png]  (and the Republicans)

--- no Eric, it was the DNC. They were caught redhanded & tried to blame the Russians. Nobody believes that lie except you & Odin
Heart my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020 Heart
Reply
#55
(11-21-2016, 01:49 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:39 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 06:05 AM)Galen Wrote: I don't see that he does.  Even during the Cold War it was understood that provoking the Soviet Union was not a good idea.  It seems to me that the US lost its proxy war against Syria.  At this point, it seems the Trump is simply recognizing reality as it is.  It is equally possible that Trump regards ISIS as a bigger threat Russia.  Given Putin's desire to preseve Russia then this is not an unreasonable assessment.

ISIS isn't manipulating US elections. Angry

-- true. That would be the DNC  Angry

No, that would be the Russians  [Image: angry.png]  (and the Republicans)

--- no Eric, it was the DNC. They were caught redhanded & tried to blame the Russians. Nobody believes that lie except you & Odin

Nope. The incidents and the blabbing on emails was all they could prove about DNC "rigging." IOW nuthin.' Hillary won fair and square. The government is investigating the Russian hacking; that's more than me and Odin and Mr. X. Trump advocated that the Russians do more of it too.

But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of emotions, I guess  [Image: angry.png]
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#56
(11-21-2016, 01:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rmoney, Bush and Kasich have the wrong policies, and Rmoney was also, like Trump, all about money and a flip-flopper on policy. They could never have been nominated by Democrats. Republicans today, including those three, are so far to the right nowadays that Democrats cannot work well with them much less nominate them. Kasich was more moderate, perhaps, but is easily swayed by the Republican majority in congress to tow the reactionary line.

Bush and Kasich were and are open borders advocates; that disqualifies them as far as the Republican electorate is concerned.  Immigration was the most important issue of this election and possibly of the remainder of the crisis period, at least until the crisis war; on this issue, Republicans are for less immigration and Democrats are for more immigration, as far as I can tell.

That's true (although Obama was the "deporter in chief" and Reagan supported "amnesty," so I dunno about that). And except for the idea that immigration is the most important issue. I guess it depends on what you mean by most important. As an issue that can appeal to fear and prejudice, well yes, it's the most important; the most emotionally powerful. As an issue that has any relation to fact or reality, no, it's not at all important. But Kasich and Bush having a modicum of sanity on that one issue, does not in the least make them acceptable to Democrats. The nub of the issue for both sides is Reaganomics, and ONLY Reaganomics. For which you have expressed your support.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#57
(11-21-2016, 03:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:49 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, that would be the Russians  [Image: angry.png]  (and the Republicans)

--- no Eric, it was the DNC. They were caught redhanded & tried to blame the Russians. Nobody believes that lie except you & Odin

Nope. The incidents and the blabbing on emails was all they could prove about DNC "rigging." IOW nuthin.' Hillary won fair and square. The government is investigating the Russian hacking; that's more than me and Odin and Mr. X. Trump advocated that the Russians do more of it too.

But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of emotions, I guess  [Image: angry.png]

The amount of psychological projection in this statement is truly astounding.  Eric the Obtuse has truly out done himself this time. Big Grin
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#58
(11-21-2016, 03:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rmoney, Bush and Kasich have the wrong policies, and Rmoney was also, like Trump, all about money and a flip-flopper on policy. They could never have been nominated by Democrats. Republicans today, including those three, are so far to the right nowadays that Democrats cannot work well with them much less nominate them. Kasich was more moderate, perhaps, but is easily swayed by the Republican majority in congress to tow the reactionary line.

Bush and Kasich were and are open borders advocates; that disqualifies them as far as the Republican electorate is concerned.  Immigration was the most important issue of this election and possibly of the remainder of the crisis period, at least until the crisis war; on this issue, Republicans are for less immigration and Democrats are for more immigration, as far as I can tell.

That's true (although Obama was the "deporter in chief" and Reagan supported "amnesty," so I dunno about that). And except for the idea that immigration is the most important issue. I guess it depends on what you mean by most important. As an issue that can appeal to fear and prejudice, well yes, it's the most important; the most emotionally powerful. As an issue that has any relation to fact or reality, no, it's not at all important. But Kasich and Bush having a modicum of sanity on that one issue, does not in the least make them acceptable to Democrats. The nub of the issue for both sides is Reaganomics, and ONLY Reaganomics. For which you have expressed your support.

I've actually modified my view on this slightly since joining the forum, thanks to Turchin's work that Mikebert introduced me to:  while Reagan's amnesty was consistent with supply side economics - it increased the supply of labor - it ultimately impoverished the working class citizenry, and thus was a major mistake.  I would have tempered Reaganomics in that respect.

Ironically, the part of Turchin's work I learned from is a part that Mikebert disagrees with.  And, of course, you and I disagree on what Reaganomics actually is, so productive discussion between us on the subject is unlikely to be productive.  It can still be fun, though.
Reply
#59
If the Russians hacked the US elections enough to alter the results, then we might as well treat those elections as null and hold new ones in early -to-middle 2017 to fill the Senate and House seats. The partisan balance between the Presidency and the House must have a split to prevent anything stupid from going on in the interim.

An election decided outside the United States implies that it is not an American election.

So it might not be fair that Donald Trump had his hidden agenda exposed? Tough! He has yet to enact it yet.

Would Donald Trump lose? Sure. Maybe he could yield to some other Republican nominee -- Romney, Kasich, Jeb Bush... if one of those won we would all have some relief.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#60
(11-21-2016, 06:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 03:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rmoney, Bush and Kasich have the wrong policies, and Rmoney was also, like Trump, all about money and a flip-flopper on policy. They could never have been nominated by Democrats. Republicans today, including those three, are so far to the right nowadays that Democrats cannot work well with them much less nominate them. Kasich was more moderate, perhaps, but is easily swayed by the Republican majority in congress to tow the reactionary line.

Bush and Kasich were and are open borders advocates; that disqualifies them as far as the Republican electorate is concerned.  Immigration was the most important issue of this election and possibly of the remainder of the crisis period, at least until the crisis war; on this issue, Republicans are for less immigration and Democrats are for more immigration, as far as I can tell.

That's true (although Obama was the "deporter in chief" and Reagan supported "amnesty," so I dunno about that). And except for the idea that immigration is the most important issue. I guess it depends on what you mean by most important. As an issue that can appeal to fear and prejudice, well yes, it's the most important; the most emotionally powerful. As an issue that has any relation to fact or reality, no, it's not at all important. But Kasich and Bush having a modicum of sanity on that one issue, does not in the least make them acceptable to Democrats. The nub of the issue for both sides is Reaganomics, and ONLY Reaganomics. For which you have expressed your support.

I've actually modified my view on this slightly since joining the forum, thanks to Turchin's work that Mikebert introduced me to:  while Reagan's amnesty was consistent with supply side economics - it increased the supply of labor - it ultimately impoverished the working class citizenry, and thus was a major mistake.  I would have tempered Reaganomics in that respect.

Ironically, the part of Turchin's work I learned from is a part that Mikebert disagrees with.  And, of course, you and I disagree on what Reaganomics actually is, so productive discussion between us on the subject is unlikely to be productive.  It can still be fun, though.

lol ok.

I certainly would not include Reagan's "amnesty" in Reaganomics. That refers to his tax cuts, cuts in regulations and cuts to social programs.

He didn't actually cut government spending, of course, because he was also a hawk on military spending. That strictly speaking is not a necessary component of supply-side/libertarian/trickle-down/free market etc. It just shows that Reagan like most "less government" proponents are hypocrites. They support the kinds of government that they want. Reagan was a neo-liberal AND a neo-con. So is Trump in that respect. Trump is allegedly less interventionist, but his VP and his other picks so far are more so, and Trump is also very dangerous because of his temperment; not to mention that his pro-Russian stance tempts Putin and allows tyrants to prevail, and his anti-Muslim fanaticism and torture/bombing threats are also incendiary. And he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons. His stupidity in foreign affairs is likely to know no bounds, and we may well soon rue the day that the majority of the US voters did not get what they voted for in Hillary Clinton.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Neil Howe In The News Bronco80 47 13,205 11-23-2020, 08:22 AM
Last Post: sbarrera
  Neil Howe: It’s going to get worse; more financial crises coming Dan '82 40 32,253 05-20-2020, 10:45 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Neil Howe and William Strauss C-Span video Eric the Green 1 2,851 04-05-2017, 03:50 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Neil Howe twitter thread Dan '82 3 4,537 11-21-2016, 04:11 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Neil Howe: Millennials: Are We There Yet? Dan '82 0 2,387 06-17-2016, 12:05 PM
Last Post: Dan '82
  Neil Howe: Which Of Tech's 'Four Horsemen' Is Built To Last? Dan '82 7 4,622 06-11-2016, 06:12 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)