The DnD Sanctuary

Too lazy to create a new thread, after earlier (IIRC) pointing out this thread has expired?

:) Yup!
But of course people need a place to vent their spleen… So, consider this an open-ended receptacle.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war

Manipulation of TV coverage is a crucial factor in Putin’s extraordinarily high popularity ratings, typically in excess of eighty per cent—ratings that Donald Trump both admires and envies.

Everything Trump equals to everything America.
We have enough threads about it.

 :up:

A fairly noticeable shift in Pew Global Attitudes (http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/),

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.pewresearch.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2F2017%2F06%2F23153955%2FPG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-1.png&hash=62b7bef2ce1abc4cf394674129e8d243" rel="cached" data-hash="62b7bef2ce1abc4cf394674129e8d243" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/23153955/PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-1.png)

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.pewresearch.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2F2017%2F06%2F23153951%2FPG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-0.png&hash=0dca70ea134b9a3fabcd79e26963acea" rel="cached" data-hash="0dca70ea134b9a3fabcd79e26963acea" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/23153951/PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-0.png)

A fairly noticeable shift in Pew Global Attitudes (http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/),

Yes, as if that means anything.   (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cleanteeth09.gif)

At least President Trump, unlike the ex-HNIC,  is leading America from the front, & couldn't care less if Europe, or the World for that matter, likes it or not.

Let Europe pick a new leader of the "Free World".... Trump believes that the title is over rated, if there's nothing in it for America.

When it eventually hits the fan (& it will), & everyone looks for a leader -- which they will, President Trump will decide what he thinks is the best deal for America.......what's in America's interests......should he be the bystander & watch how they handle the heat, or get in & reap the spoils.

The Free Lunch is no longer there for the World's ravenous appetite.

It's going to be more like pay as you go form here on out.


It's about [glow=blue,2,300]America First, [/glow].......not Global Likability, that's important.

The World, for what it's worth,  can suck wind out of a dead donkey's ass.........   (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/firefart.gif)

If it isn't in America's best interest, piss off...(as with the Paris Agreement, which means nothing to America now) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif)

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Odd that Obama got what he did. He did more computerised bombing than GW Bush did and neither did he improve the lot of the tens of millions living at the bottom of the ex-colonies, eh? Shame the ex-colonials get saddled with the system they got but there again it was the early corporates who started that stuff.

"Those who fly solo has [sic?] the strongest wings."
Time to send America to a planet on their own.

Thanks to Trump and his electors, America got back to North Korea level.

Fantastic indeed.

Well the country has never really been a proper democracy. It was created by their own late 18th century corporates and the majority of people did not have a vote. Look what it has produced and the world effected by the negativity. Does show that it wasn't only Dr Goebells who was clever at propagandising people.

Let Europe pick a new leader of the "Free World".... Trump believes that the title is over rated, if there's nothing in it for America.

The Free Lunch is no longer there for the World's ravenous appetite.

Actually, the free  lunch is what America has experienced for the last 50 years. We're an opioid nation that hardly manufactures anything. Yet, we have pretty high standard of living as far as consumer goods and housing is concerned.

Why is that? Because America has a low income, at almost slave labor level, world supporting its consumer needs. This didn't happen by magic. Its due to trade deals and the projection of American power and diplomacy that has put us in such a favorable position. We're the ones who created the trade rules that favors us, the world banking system that gives us preferment.

Now Trump is throwing away what generations of Americans have worked hard to get us.

Here's a political editor, known as a conservative, take on Trump and his giving away of American world leadership:
https://twitter.com/InsidersABC/status/883829926993862656/video/1

Here's an article on Trump quitting TPP, happy news for China:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

For years, Beijing has listened to the Obama administration say the 12-nation regional trade deal was a way of bolstering American leadership in Asia.

China was not included in the deal, and President Barack Obama went out of his way to remind the region that this was no accident. TPP allows America - and not countries like China - to write the rules of the road in the 21st Century, which is especially important in a region as dynamic as the Asia-Pacific.

Nor was this ever just about the rules on trade. TPP was a core part of the Obama administration's strategic "pivot to Asia". US Defence Secretary Ash Carter said that alongside boosting US exports, it would strengthen Washington's key relationships in the Asia-Pacific, signal US commitment to the region and promote American values.

"Passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier," he insisted.

No wonder then that Beijing saw the US pivot to Asia, and the TPP within that, as a thinly disguised plan to contain China's growing might. Just this weekend, the official Chinese news agency described TPP as "the economic arm of the Obama administration's geopolitical strategy to make sure that Washington rules supreme in the region".

...
 As Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned bluntly on a visit to Washington in August, TPP put America's "reputation on the line" with its partners in the region.

"Each one of them has overcome some domestic political objection, some sensitivity, some political cost to come to the table and make this deal," Mr Lee said.

"If at the end, waiting at the altar, the bride doesn't arrive, I think that people are going to be very hurt."

Today US diplomats can't have it both ways in Asia. After telling partners that pushing through TPP was bolstering American leadership in the region, the obvious conclusion must be that reversing TPP is undermining US leadership. And into this perceived leadership vacuum, China itself is ready to move.
...

Another Trump hypocrisy is his Buy American mantra. This he recently announced his Made in America Week week. Not that he walks the talk. But, then like Trump, talk is cheap.

The products Trump companies sell are almost all imported. The steel in Trump buildings came from China. Just about only the MAGA hats worn by his morons is supposedly made in the USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/16/white-house-unveils-made-in-america-week-though-many-trump-products-are-made-overseas/

We're the ones who created the trade rules that favors us, the world banking system that gives us preferment.

Actually we use the British system of banking.

Trump said various things in his campaign then seems to do a dance on some of the stuff now.  We all know that there are of course many quite sensible people over there but there are an h of a lot who are not and the fact they run into millions is shocking and only emphasises the unfortunate internal state of the country as well as what it does outside. The system is a farce I am afraid and there are tens of millions who are in difficult circumstances while the corporates increasingly zoom ahead. makes things so damn farcical. Apart from the terrible hypocrisy and the many, many who are being treated like peasants it is a damnable shame the decent are stuck with the system. Trump is an obvious example and there is of course a lot of niggling going on mover there but the system can produce people like Trump which only epitomises the deep flaws.

Have known individual people from there who were beyond reproach and a decent contradiction of what passes for that word 'system.' Tens of millions flocking to that man will make no difference to the vast poor army and the way the nation is run.  The way trump is flip-flopping he could be a mental penguin.  :irked:

We were at a time that we though that in the western democratic world never a psychopath could be ever elected again.
Americans demonstrated that we were wrong. They claim for their own production of Hitlers, Stalins, Neros and the such.

Yes, they can!

Unfortunately for the Americans who are sensible the place is run by two corporate lots. Because of that many over there were a bit frustrated and although Trump is a businessman  they thought they would go for someone who was not brained by the Hill mentality. It does say one thing that is distinct that only the Yanks could end up with someone like that!  :worried:

For long long time (centuries) no one is behaving as Trump does.
At least, he was supposed to do things with style.

You are forgetting Bozo.

I have to say this about Trump that he although playing word games with the North Korean idiot has been just playing word games with the dictator. However the Korean head-banger is a disgrace and danger. He thinks he can get away with flying rockets over other countries - such as Japan threaten to shoot down US planes even if not over North Korea is mind blowing. It is bad that NK is doing what it does and just ignoring even increased sanctions and crossing swords with the UN but murdering and starving it's own people is despicable. Kim Jong-un is worse than Trump and does not care a damn about law, international law, respect of other countries and so on. Are places like Japan and South Korea just to put up with this>L War is not something I want to push for but if the evil git steps over the line from what he doing something needs to happen to him and eventually get the people free.

Trump budget to include $3 billion for border wall: official (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-wall/trump-budget-to-include-3-billion-for-border-wall-official-idUSKBN1FT09M)

Is Mexico not cooperating?

Meanwhile, in Berlin: The rise and fall of the Berlin Wall and why it matters today (https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/02/07/rise-and-fall-berlin-wall-and-why-it-matters-today).

The Berlin Wall stood for 10,316 days. As of Feb. 5, 201[8], it has now been breached for over 10,316 days. From now on, Berlin will live with the memory of the wall for longer than it lived with the wall itself.

For the generations that grew up in a divided Berlin, the fact that the young will not experience such a life must be seen as evidence of the city’s achievement. Still, there is something lost as the hard-won lessons and perspectives of living in the shadow of the wall begin to recede.

Berlin wall does not have much similarity with the Mexican border. Berlin wall has more similarity to the Jerusalem wall. Or, let's face it, the border in Melilla.

(https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1404828/melilla-migrants.jpg)

Mexican border is different because it runs mostly in rural areas where nobody lives. And there isn't such a disparity of wealth between the USA and Mexico as it's cracked up to be. Of course, it's useful for Trump to keep cracking things up.

Now President trump is shoving up military expenditure and what a nonsense that is.

Secondly having been impressed watching the big French military parade with their President he would love the same thing to be done in America? I would say this. I groan as the French were a lot smarter than the American idea of military display and so other places including my own country would put on a proper military show just like France. When it comes to such stuff in the ex-colonies they are amateurs.  Even the way I once watched a US army squad marking time with their legs being raised backwards it is the kind of style wee girl would do here. All they are doing is walking in step no crispness at all Even the way they carry Colours is head shaking! . Don't do it man in the White house because others do it better.   :down:

(https://i.imgur.com/ffNAMW5.jpg)
Still, pretty good achievements, I must admit. Beats Obama.

Obama promised change. There was no significant change compared to W. era. And close Guantanamo - didn't even attempt it.

Trump seems to leave a New Deal-like mark - he is already creating jobs with the wall thing. Very funny if he will be remembered later as one of the greats. Goes to prove that, for Americans, appearances are everything.

Just a pity the place is not a real democracy as the decent are being conned, frustrated and suffering.

Goes to prove that, for Americans, appearances are everything.

For Americans, anything is everything. American way of life, so they call it.
They have good things also. I don't get along with the very European "crucify the Americans".

We, the Europeans, we are getting very hypocritical.

I wouldn't be too bothered about Europeans crucifying Americans it is doing itself perfectly highly when you look at corruption, gun madness, prison numbers, poverty, etc, etc........

Quote from: ersi on 2018-04-06, 11:04:26

Goes to prove that, for Americans, appearances are everything.

For Americans, anything is everything. American way of life, so they call it.
They have good things also. I don't get along with the very European "crucify the Americans".

They are doing it to themselves.

They are doing it to themselves.

Probably. Empires don't get to an end by doing the right and appropriate things...
I hardly believe Trump to represent the Americans, that would be the worst of nightmares.

Don't get upset about their ignorance with the Baltic States, I'm sure Trump thinks Portugal to be a part of Spain. So does RjHowie.

Haha, nice try Belfrager. My only complaint about Portugal is how it did in it's monarchy me being a Monarchist!

Meanwhile Trump goes directly with negotiations with the "Dear Líder" of North Korea. Everything smooth and easy.
Nobel prize is closer...

What a farse.

I'm bewildered at the word bewidered.  :angel:

Uh-oh Some typical mixed up stuff rom SmileyFaze. A traditional Yankee right winger who also supports neo- Marxists in NI and Eire!  :faint:

If you like President Trump, you'll love this.....

If you hate President Trump, you'll fall to the floor crying, kicking, & screaming because it hits every button within your #NeverTrumpers butt-hurt snowflake being, since you still haven't come to grips with him winning the US Presidency, & becoming the most powerful man on the planet bar none! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif)

You are in fact yourself projecting would-be liberal mind stuff. They automatically guff when you disagree with them that you hate. I do try to allow for sensible yanks but unfortunately you do illustrate the limitation of the grey cell use. Disagree means hate?  Hhhm you have an education problem boy. I made it simple in that hypocrisy is I am afraid floating about between the ears! A rightist corporate man (fair enough) but a Marxist sympathiser? Not surprised your country is as it is.......

If you hate President Trump, you'll fall to the floor crying, kicking, & screaming because it hits every button within your #NeverTrumpers butt-hurt snowflake being, since you still haven't come to grips with him winning the US Presidency, & becoming the most powerful man on the planet bar none!

Such haters include about half of American conservatives. Not everybody likes the idea of having a proud pussy-grabber as legally elected president.

As for liberals or conservatives elsewhere in the world, it makes little difference who the current president in USA is. USA could just as well be without a president, it would hardly matter.

Your post says more about your own assumptions than about anything to do with Trump or his haters.

#NeverTrumpers butt-hurt snowflake being

Besides, I've got to believe you can do better than this. This is weak son.  (like your President. ;) )

Well the hypocritical nonsense from that right winger American here who also supports Marxist terrorists is a routine example of why America looks daft in the world....... :sing:

it makes little difference who the current president in USA is. USA could just as well be without a president, it would hardly matter.

Absolutely.

I do not think that President Trump has any class, dignity or decorum for someone who is a Head of State. The one before him made me groan sometimes always each time going on a plane jogging up all those steps . Ridiculous. What a place.

And furthermore that groaning display stuff from Trump and the French President made me squirm. They acted a like a couple of immature clowns and if someone tried all that hugging, kissing and stuff with me  would thump him.  :irked:

Are you saying Macron did a bise on Trump?

RJ does neither links or references, only ramble.

But yes, here's the bise.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZzhQJvH1w8[/video]

A handy nonsense from you there ersi! What I dashed well said is not a fantasy as you and the television viewer world knows too well. It looked immature, childish and pathetic. Glad they both kept away from me still as I don't need boxing gloves. What a nonsense from those two clowns. Had shaking immaturity.  :down:

What I dashed well said is not a fantasy as you and the television viewer world knows too well.

Of course, the entire television viewer world agrees with you. The television viewer world is not a fantasy!

 :up:  :lol:

Trump says " the EU was formed to take advantage of the US".
 :lol:  :zzz:

The guy doesn't seem to have a concept of mutual advantage.

I don't have any problem with someone who is not a traditional politician taking an office but the man can make heads shake. I do not think this modern nonsense of making tweets on the Net is very mature nor progressive. Some of what he comes out with is immature and silly for a man who is meant to be a Head of State.  Obama always running up long plane stairs was another groan and not very good either for a Head. I know America has only a part democracy system but Trump has little dignity and all that stuff with the French President made me groan as does all that European hugging and kissing stuff. Glad when i was in politics non-one did that stuff with me or a sore jaw would follow.  :ko:

At one point I tried to be kind of reasonable at who nutjoblanders out in as their leader but the more he goes on the dafter and a groan he is. Thought maybe someone not a routine politician might be a unique and okay change but nope just part and parcel of the daftness taken as normality over the pond. Routine sackings, daft tweets, threats and silly talk. His speech at the Rife lot was so immature and shocking it is no small wonder the country is in the state it is in. Both in Britain and FRrance Trump has been condemned for the immature speech he gave to that lot of brainless eejits.

His stance on Constitution rights, Iran and world issues are head shaking but what does it say about a place that puts in such people??

As for liberals or conservatives elsewhere in the world, it makes little difference who the current president in USA is. USA could just as well be without a president, it would hardly matter.

The US president matters to the world. Not only is this grifter now the third most powerful person in the world (https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/#tab:overall) (after Xi and Putin, ahead of Merkel, Bezos, and Pope Francis), the power of the US presidency is primarily US foreign policy. The outside world might ignore the damage he is doing to his own country (it is self-inflicted after all, they voted for him), but there is significant collateral damage world-wide. We will all suffer the consequences. 

Indeed. The US diplomatic corps was overall a force for good in the world.  You could almost say that they're currently proactively failing to reach peaceful solutions when and where the option presents itself. How many countries don't have US ambassadors now exactly?

..



Source:    The Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/08/donald-trump-announces-decision-iran-nuclear-deal-live-updates/)     

Donald Trump pulled America out of the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, reimposing sanctions on the regime and delivering on an election campaign promise. 

The US president said the “defective” 2015 agreement would not stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb and signed a presidential memorandum enacting the US withdrawal.

Iran has been accused of failing to be honest about its nuclear ambitions while supporting terrorist groups and acting in an increasingly hostile way across the Middle East.

Britain, France and Germany condemned the move in a joint statement and promised to stay within the nuclear agreement claiming that it was the only way to prevent a Middle-Eastern nuclear arms race.

However, the White House announcement was welcomed by Israel - which released new intelligence on Iran's nuclear programme last week - and several Arab nations.

Mr Trump said: “It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.

“The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen.

“In just a short period of time the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon.

“Therefore I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.”

The US president added: “Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.”

Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, warned that if negotiations with other partners to the deal failed then the country’s uranium programme will restart.

Shortly after the announcement, there were widespread reports of an explosion in Syria, possibly the result of an Israeli strike on Iranian forces.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least nine pro-government fighters were killed, including members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The decision to reimpose sanctions raises fears that European companies who trade with the Iranian government and do business in America could be hit with sanctions.

Mr Trump has long been a critic of the Iran nuclear deal, which was signed by his predecessor Barack Obama and lifted sanctions in turn for the country’s nuclear programme being curbed. Mr Obama criticised the decision as a "mistake".

Mr Trump said he was open to striking a new, wider deal with Iran that would address behaviour such as the country’s ballistic missiles programme and involvement in Syria and Yemen.

The US president said he wanted a “real, comprehensive and lasting solution” that would thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

He also made clear he was delivering on a 2016 election campaign pledge, saying: "The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them."

The re-imposition of sanctions will come into effect between three and six months from now. It includes sanctions on Iranian oil exports, the country's central bank, and Iranian businesses.

European companies with significant presences in the US could be caught up if they do not curtail business in Iran before the sanctions come into effect.

Some of them were exploring ways to continue doing business in Iran after making significant investments following the announcement of the nuclear deal three years ago.

The UK, France and Germany issued a joint statement saying they “regret” the decision and making clear they would remain in the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The statement said: “Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement."

It went on: “We encourage Iran to show restraint in response to the decision by the US; Iran must continue to meet its own obligations under the deal, cooperating fully and in a timely manner with IAEA inspection requirements.”

EU leaders are expected to meet within days to discuss how the deal can be rescued. Mr Rouhani, the president of Iran, said Iran would stay in the nuclear deal for now but was prepared to return to enriching uranium if its interests were not preserved.

He denounced Mr Trump’s speech as “psychological warfare” against Iran but said his country would not bow to pressure. “Our people have always been victorious in the face of conspiracies and we will also emerge victorious at this juncture."

But he warned: "I have ordered Iran's atomic organisation that whenever it is needed, we will start enriching uranium more than before."

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister and a leading critic of the Iran deal, said Mr Trump had made a “brave and correct decision” to withdraw from the agreement.

"Israel fully supports President Trump's bold decision today to reject the disastrous nuclear deal,” Mr Netanyahu said in a speech moments after Mr Trump’s address.

The Israeli leader has consistently warned that the deal would pave the way for Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons and called the agreement a “recipe for disaster”.

Shortly before Mr Trump’s speech, Israel’s military said it had detected “irregular activity of Iranian forces in Syria” and ordered Israelis on the Golan Heights to ready their bomb shelters.

Israeli officials have been saying for several weeks that they expected Iran to retaliate for a suspected Israeli strike against the T4 airbase in Syria, which killed seven Iranians. 

IMHO, the original deal was defective to it's core, & didn't hinder the Iranians from advancing their ambitions one bit.

The President made the right call, & will seek to force a better deal on Iran.

If Europe can't understand that, they can collectively piss up a rope, the US President is not going to backpedal due to Europe's piss-poor protest. 

Europe should remember which side their bread is buttered on, & after they get over their latest "hissy-fit", they should stand up strongly behind the USA, & help force Iran back to the table to sign a more equitable & accountable Nuclear arms agreement, not the porous deal they laughingly penned with the former Vacillator-in-Chief, Barrack Hussein Obama. 

"Most powerful person in the world" or "overall a force for good^[1] in the world" happens regardless who the president is. The United States is a country whose policies just happen, this is why I say the president does not matter. Do not overestimate him.

For example, Trump is obviously incompetent. The proof is all over the place, yet the country is not collapsing. If it were up to the president, the US should be in ruins by now. There is something else holding the country up, regardless of the president.

When W and Al Gore were running, I heard some people say that W would be better, because Gore's running mate had a Jewish name, so Gore would probably be too pro-Israel and likely to start a war or something. Now we know what wars W started. And I would not lay those wars only on W. USA starts wars at regular intervals. When there is no war for a while, you can be sure that USA will start one. That's why it had to happen during W's era regardless of the president.

As to Iran, USA has been making it worse all the time. W's wars surrounded Iran. This is the worst pressure possible on a country. Whoever says that Iran should be pressured even more must be meaning war directly against Iran and is therefore out of his mind.

It is awkward when your oldest classmate gets hit by a stone and becomes brain damaged. He was always a little fickle, but now he is unstable and stupid.

The Iran affair was utterly predictable. Sooner or later Trump would run out of advisers to constrain him, here and elsewhere. What I hope European leaders would do is to play the long game, though they would probably go for the quick fix if they can. There could be an "improved" and renamed Gold-Plated Trump-Is-Such-A-Master-Negotiator Iran deal for instance, and there would be much rejoicing in the White House.

Predictable or not, it is lousy timing. The one positive outcome that would normally be a boon, a weakened Iranian regime with internal strife, would not be be one in today's Extended Middle East (a chastened one could though), while all the other, negative, consequences will be amplified.

"Most powerful person in the world" or "overall a force for good^{[1] (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2720.msg80244;boardseen#fn1_0)} in the world" happens regardless who the president is. The United States is a country whose policies just happen, this is why I say the president does not matter. Do not overestimate him.

That's the way things should be in a proper country. While not a guarantee for success, the opposite would be a very strong indicator that we're looking at a deeply dysfunctional country. Indeed, we're talking about a long-term trend going back two or three decades (including under Obama). Yet the sheer scale and speed with which the Trump administration has dismantled American diplomacy is still something special.

Easily disputable adjective. For example, everything that is bad and evil in the Middle East this century is directly the fault of USA.

Diplomacy is fraught with nasty compromises, executed by flawed human beings. But when I say that American diplomacy is overall a force for good it's not necessarily the most relevant counter-example to bring up a US administration that sidelined diplomacy and randomly went to war. Diplomacy is a large but not the only part of foreign policy.

Diplomacy is fraught with nasty compromises, executed by flawed human beings. But when I say that American diplomacy is overall a force for good it's not necessarily the most relevant counter-example to bring up a US administration that sidelined diplomacy and randomly went to war. Diplomacy is a large but not the only part of foreign policy.

The problem here is that you seem to see diplomacy as one aspect of foreign policy and war as another. Europeans tend to shun wars a bit now post-WWII, which is nice of us, but inapplicable to USA.

USA's foreign policy does not see any distinction. Diplomacy and war are both equally viable options in their foreign policy, and foreign policy is always directed to promote US international trade objectives. It says so in Kissinger's Diplomacy. No matter who the US president is, Trump or Hillary, s/he goes by that book.

There could be an "improved" and renamed Gold-Plated Trump-Is-Such-A-Master-Negotiator Iran deal for instance, and there would be much rejoicing in the White House.

I won't hold my breath. Iran is on the war list like there was Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Sudan.

Trump is only a lousy actor (clown) playing the part he has to. The script for the part (future wars and humanitarian bombings) was written by others years ago... 

March 2007, General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw[/video]

All diplomacy is a continuation of wars by other means. The US administration is wilfully reducing their capacity to wage that political war, which is stupid of them, and harmful to those whose interests mostly align with the interests of the US. For the US self-inflicted harm seems the rule of their game. This extends to economic warfare. 

That's the second time in as many month Trump has attacked European economic interests, and Trump can ill afford a two-front trade war. The harm EU can do to the US economy neatly complements the harm China can do. However, even if the European powers could, it is unlikely they should. The Trumps will be kicked out one day, while the damage from a global trade war will be lasting. A series of small squeezes would be a better course of action.

This isn't unheard of, of course, you want to corral doubters to your side, "you are with us or against us", and Europe is much more with US than against them. It's pretty transparent, but Europe should play the game as well, taking advantage of the US weakness, and consider what is in European long-term interests. 

The harm EU can do to the US economy neatly complements the harm China can do. However, even if the European powers could, it is unlikely they should.

I disagree a bit here. The EU could and also should harm the USA economically, because the USA has fully deserved it and harms the EU all the time. However, it is unlikely that the EU would, because the EU was always more of a disunion than a union when it comes to any sort of foreign (extra-EU) policy.

...Europe should play the game as well, taking advantage of the US weakness, and consider what is in European long-term interests.

I agree here, but again, it's unlikely that the EU would do it. We saw it just recently: Trump threatened global steel tariffs, some EU member countries (Germany, Sweden, and France in particular) ran to negotiate separate deals with the USA, instead of acting as a union from Svalbard to Malta and Azores to Peipus like they should. The EU is ridiculously brittle.

I won't hold my breath. Iran is on the war list like there was Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Sudan.

Toppling the Islamic Republic of Iran is a US policy goal, and after all it is a horrible regime.  A democratic Iran is desirable  However toppling horrible regimes hasn't worked out so well, and that was for the relatively simple cases. Invading Iran is not on the cards, that's why the regime can harbour the idea of foregoing nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately the way the US is likely to go about this is by strengthening Saudi Arabia, an even worse regime.  However it is a regime that pays well, and those billions have made any qualms go away. SA is losing political clout, oil isn't quite what it used to be, but money still talks, and Saudi money is likely to do more mischief in the future.

I disagree a bit here. The EU could and also should harm the USA economically, because the USA has fully deserved it and harms the EU all the time. However, it is unlikely that the EU would, because the EU was always more of a disunion than a union when it comes to any sort of foreign (extra-EU) policy.

That's what I meant by "if they could, should they?" Of course the EU should protect European interests, complicated by that there is a rather modest EU power, and stronger, but often diverging powers of UK, France, and Germany. In this case the interests converge. Spats and US insanity aside, Europe and US have more in common than in opposition, and more in common than with other partners. It is moving though towards a more open relationship, seeing others, sooner than I had hoped.

Furthermore Europe lives off trade and tourism. We wouldn't benefit by cutting the nose to spite the face. The West, and that includes the US, have in large parts China to thank for our economic boom. The hope is that this can continue even if/after China loses steam, with India and the rest of the once-poor world. We don't want to break that.

So many people hoping EU to decide something. EU will never decide anything, it's role is to survive after other's mistakes.
We don't lead anymore. Let the others kill themselves.Then, Europe's destiny will be fulfilled again.

Never a dull moment with this administration anyways. Finally, a reality TV show I can follow. :rolleyes:

So many people hoping EU to decide something. EU will never decide anything, it's role is to survive after other's mistakes.
We don't lead anymore. Let the others kill themselves.Then, Europe's destiny will be fulfilled again.

Not the EU as much as Britain, Germany, France, conveniently called the E3. These are languages with an army, navy and wallet, while the rest of EUs mostly add diversity and a trading block (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2971.msg77340#msg77340). With Brexit the E3 becomes slightly more complicated, more like E2+1, and the power play becomes slightly more interesting.

Before Brexit the E3 was not only the real power behind EU, they also had a blocking minority. The-rest-of-EUs has 58% of the population, while 65% is needed for a qualified majority. You could get a majority against one E3 power, in principle even two, but not against all three. Now, with Brexit, Britain is out of the voting game. As they do no longer count the-rest-of-EUs now have 66% of the population. So, come 2019, we could come in the position that the EU could vote for something that all of Germany (19%), France (15%), and Britain (0%) were against. I don't know what that could possibly be, but it would be a milestone. 

Before Brexit the E3 was not only the real power behind EU, they also had a blocking minority. The-rest-of-EUs has 58% of the population, while 65% is needed for a qualified majority. You could get a majority against one E3 power, in principle even two, but not against all three. Now, with Brexit, Britain is out of the voting game. As they do no longer count the-rest-of-EUs now have 66% of the population. So, come 2019, we could come in the position that the EU could vote for something that all of Germany (19%), France (15%), and Britain (0%) were against. I don't know what that could possibly be, but it would be a milestone.

Interesting reasoning. If considering the non "E3" are able to get a common position about anything.

I keep believing that "South Union against Northern Union" to be the more desirable way of ruling the EU, considering both realities, not the E3 "we own we decide" position. They don't own it, not at all.

Well the south is less good economical than the north which is more progressive in many ways.

the north which is more progressive in many ways.

Like silly cockroaches. Progressive cockroaches.

But not completely progressive but they do fund the south......

Trump’s Ancestral Village Abounds With His Relatives. Few Will Admit It.

KALLSTADT, Germany — Herbert Trump did not want to talk about it. Neither did Ilse Trump. Ursula Trump, who runs the Trump bakery in the next village, eventually relented, palms upturned, and sighed: “You can’t choose your relatives, can you?”

I think I saw that exact same article in Der Spiegel one or two years ago. :P

That village spends a lot of time neither confirming nor denying.

I think I saw that exact same article in Der Spiegel one or two years ago. :P

Well, I didn't, but I looked it up now, thanks :)

In Deutsch:  http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/donald-trump-besuch-in-seiner-heimat-kallstadt-a-1072487.html
In English: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-visit-to-the-german-ancestral-home-of-the-trump-family-a-1072975.html

For the record I lived in (by actually) Karlstad (https://youtu.be/Shyk_RS-Apo), Switzerland. Obviously they disavow any Trumpian connection, even fake fictional. 

You've been around. ;)

Well, well.........the EU seems to have come to an impasse.


    ◆ Will Britain remain in the EU???  (they will not halt trading, probably just flex any muscle she may still have, from the perimeters)

    ◆ The USA has been rumored to be contemplating withdrawing any & all financial support from NATO, & withdrawing a large portion of the American presence out of the continent.

Seems, on both fronts, the EU best start getting it's ducks in order, because if both come to pass, there's a hungry bear on your doorsteps just salivating for a little taste.

The EU, those not pulling their fair share, best start coughing up 2.5%+ of their GDP pronto, or the EU might just be invited for dinner......And what's being served you ask?........................Why, the EU......



➤ ➤ Of Nato's 29 members, just five meet that target this year: the US, Greece, Estonia, the UK and Latvia. However, several, such as Poland and France, are close to the mark.


[glow=black,2,300]A word to the wise.......start forking up heaps of Euros, or say goodbye to the NATO you used to know!!! [/glow]


..

The EU, those not pulling their fair share, best start coughing up 2.5%+ of their GDP pronto...

Yup, time for another Hitler to militarise Germany. Trump insists.

Two years ago, when specifically asked about NATO commitment to Baltic countries who incidentally spend according to the requirements, Trump answered, "We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills." That's Trump - he never cares who he is talking to and what about. He just talks, a lot and loud.

Like this, "Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

there's a hungry bear on your doorsteps just salivating for a little taste.

Just for your information:
Europe's problem is not a salivating bear but that of a salivating DJT.

I am not a Trump fan generally but I think the crowds congregating here in Gt Britain are a groan. Channel 4 quite deliberately used the front of the mob as their background in running their Friday night news which I thought a bit too leaning. Two speakers who were leftist interviewed including a Labour MP but no-one from the other side. A lot of the mouthing was over exaggerating racist and baloney stuff which i did not find helpful or right.

A Channel 4 man back at the studio interviewing a US politician rabbited on about the USA being the most democratic country in the world (oh really?!). We have had country leaders from all over the dashed place including actual dictatorships and all those who came out about Trump are hypocritical.

➤ ➤ Of Nato's 29 members, just five meet that target this year: the US, Greece, Estonia, the UK and Latvia. However, several, such as Poland and France, are close to the mark.

The EU, those not pulling their fair share, best start coughing up 2.5%+ of their GDP pronto, or the EU might just be invited for dinner......And what's being served you ask?........................Why, the EU......

Funny you should bring up dinner. The US might spend some 3.5% of its GDP on its military, but the Japanese presence, South Korean military exercises, the myriad of US bases in Saudi Arabia, all the drones over Pakistan, Ethiopia, and so on have preciously little to do with NATO business even in its widest definition (which spuriously includes the war in Afghanistan). It's like if I get a regular meal at a restaurant, while my supposed friend orders the caviar, the lobster, and a bottle of Laurent-Perrier. After eating only a few bites of each item, he subsequently admonishes me for not wanting to pay my equal and "fair" share.

We were in Iraq. We were in Afghanistan. We were in Lybia. We are in the Baltic. One might wonder, and not only for the sake of argument, who actually spends more on the defense of NATO countries.^[1]

PS For Germany to spend 2% of its GDP on its military is not exactly the most popular proposition among most NATO members. Besides which, I'm not sure if I should even take seriously the possibility that there's someone around who thinks it's a threat to talk about closing down a few US bases in Germany.

Still insist that those demonstrations in Gt Britain were a waste of time. The one held here in my city of Glasgow was in the central George Square in front of the city chambers but not that many there but the tv camera was for the most part right up near them so not to show that!

PS For Germany to spend 2% of its GDP on its military is not exactly the most popular proposition among most NATO members. Besides which, I'm not sure if I should even take seriously the possibility that there's someone around who thinks it's a threat to talk about closing down a few US bases in Germany.

No European country would like Germany to become a military might again. However, if USA pulled out its bases (it won't), Germany alone has all the resources to instantly replace them abundantly, not to mention other European countries.

The only sad part here is that USA would cease to function as an ally. Then again, in my assessment it already ceased when this century started.

PS Trump and Putin will meet in Helsinki tomorrow (arrive today). Will be fun to watch. Finnish brewery creates quirky beer for Trump-Putin summit (https://apnews.com/16012fb5d9064192bbde4fdb35b960e8)

(https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:d17571b5d0c8406c9dee36f3d454f8a3/800.jpeg)

PS Trump and Putin will meet in Helsinki tomorrow (arrive today). Will be fun to watch.

Speaking of Helsinki, did you catch that Puigdemont was apparently arrested in Germany while driving back from Finland to Belgium? Supposedly he abused Spanish public funds.

(One wonders what a wanted man is doing driving all over the continent.)

Speaking of Helsinki, did you catch that Puigdemont was apparently arrested in Germany while driving back from Finland to Belgium?

Yes, I caught that he was caught, but I did not catch the details. Not sure what business he would have had in Helsinki.

Edit: Here's a bit of news about it though
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10123289
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10129229

It's said to have been a tour of lecturing and of politically oriented meetings where Puigdemont was treated as an ordinary EU citizen. Puigdemont says that he regrets one thing he did: He delayed the declaration of independence.

Odd thing about Trump is he changes attitudes occasionally. Hope President Putin has a sense of humour.

Addressed to them both...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiI3GYUXcAAdZ7L.jpg)

Finland is ranked fourth on the Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index. The US is 45th — while Russia, where the state heavily controls the media and many journalists have been murdered, is 148th.

But prior to the press conference, an American reporter, allegedly from the Nation, was removed upon request from US security service https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10307718

I think that what Trump came out with fter the four hours private meeting was fine and impressive. It won't go down back hom in nutjobland where there are well over a dozen security organisations braining people. More cleverer than the 3rd Reich or the old USSR. They spy on damn everyone and interfere in countries that will not bow the knee to the USA and so on. The things they accuse others of they have practised for ages! As for what passes for a parliament there is no evidence Russia freaked the election. Such a load of insensible nonsense.

Trump is just the flies that changes, the shit remains the same.

Got a point there. Will continue to have over 41 million on food stamps, over 2 million in prison, people on death row for over a decade! (how disgusting). Continue to point the finger at other countries but also continue to spy, disrupt or knock out countries they cannot control and so on. They point the finger elsewhere and dance around the fact they are at the same stuff themselves. Wouldn't like to live there as it is so damn two-faced and even decent Yanks are stuck with the farce.

West Hollywood passes resolution to remove President Trump's Hollywood Walk of Fame star

West Hollywood City council unanimously passes resolution asking the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to remove the Donald Trump star on Hollywood Walk of Fame.

No Hollywood?
No Walk?
No Fame?

No Hollywood?
No Walk?
No Fame?

No star.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tmz.com%2F2016%2F10%2F26%2F1026-donald-trump-star-tmz-getty-3.jpg&hash=ddfea77193541022a10b5777d80339c7" rel="cached" data-hash="ddfea77193541022a10b5777d80339c7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://images.tmz.com/2016/10/26/1026-donald-trump-star-tmz-getty-3.jpg)

I am not impressed with the way America is generally run or the millions who don't do well there or the world interference but I do equally know there are many over there who are basically decent but being misused. That the man got so many votes does betray the other side of large numbers of brained. Wish they had a better and wider system over there as Trump is no advantage to anyone outside of the controlling mindsets.  :(

Trump Made Socialism Great Again (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/trump-made-socialism-great-again/567245/)

Maybe we can add him to blame for Corbyn!  :lol:

Trump accuses Google of rigged search results about him

In his tweets, Trump said — without offering evidence — that “Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal?”

Google rigs search results depending on who is searching. Trump has his own personalised Google search results.

Source:      The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/icc-us-john-bolton-international-criminal-court-national-security-advisor-donald-trump-a8531701.html)     

National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, John Bolton, has said the International Criminal Court (ICC) is “dead to us” in his latest speech.

He labelled the court as “illegitimate” and “for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us”.

Mr Bolton, who has long held an unfavourable view of the court, who was speaking at a meeting of the Federalist Society, a conservative group based in Washington DC, said the ICC was “ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed outright dangerous”.

The court, established in 2002 in The Hague in the Netherlands, has the power to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The US never ratified the Rome Statute that established the court and George W Bush, in the early days of the still-ongoing war in Afghanistan, never ratified it.

The court is getting ready to investigate detainee abuse in Afghanistan, an investigation Mr Bolton called “utterly unfounded”, adding: ”We will provide no cooperation to the ICC.”

The former US Ambassador to the United Nations under Mr Bush, went on to say the “central aim of [the ICC’s] most vigorous supporters was to constrain the US”.

Mr Bolton said the court’s statute had “glaring, significant flaws” and ”constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the US”.

He also acknowledged his hecklers as Code Pink, an international charity which works to end US-funded wars, his “friends who follow me” everywhere.

Mr Bolton, following a trend in the Trump administration of criticising multilateralism, branded the ICC as a “freewheeling global organisation governing over individuals without their consent”.

He claimed American “soldiers, politicians, and private citizens” are at risk because the court assumes the automatic right to prosecute over everyone, even in countries which did not ratify the Rome Statute establishing the court. 

Israel, Sudan, Russia, and the US under Mr Bush, are four signatories of the statute who renounced their signatures and informed the UN they would no longer be subject to the legal obligations under the statute.

Mr Bolton said the US’ “unsigning” of the Rome Statute was meant to protect Americans from the “unacceptable overreach” of the court.

He cited the 2002 American Service-members Protection Act, “which some have dubbed the Hague invasion act” Mr Bolton said and also prosecution within South Africa following the abolishment of apartheid as examples of why the court was “superfluous”.

The act authorized the US president to use all means, “including force”, to shield US military members from prosecution by the ICC, he noted.

The Trump aide said US courts and the military justice system already hold all Americans to “the highest legal and ethical standards”.

Mr Bolton repeatedly hit out at the global body of which 123 countries are part, asking: “Would you consign the fate of American citizens to a committee of other nations [and] entities that aren’t even states like the Palestinian authority?”

The US state department had earlier announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) office in Washington, partly out of a concern over the office’s attempts to have the ICC investigate US ally Israel.

He supported the aggressive US stance against the ICC by citing internal management issues, like divulging confidential information to human rights ambassadors like actress Angelina Jolie.

Mr Bolton went as far as threatening ICC officials and prosecutors with sanctions and legal action “to the extent permissible under US law” and said those individuals could be barred from entering the country.

The overarching message of the National Security Advisor was that any perceived atrocity against humanity is to be deemed so by the people within those states, not by the international body.

“We don’t recognise any authority higher than the US Constitution,” Mr Bolton said.

It just goes to show that you can't underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of the Trump voter. You suspect they are dumb and they prove to you to be much dumber.

First of all the ICC is not a UN organisation. Second, the creation of the ICC was by the instigation by the US, and it is an open secret that it serves US interests. Everyone charged by the ICC have been enemies of the US. Nobody cares because these bastards deserve to be in jail anyway. Third, the ICC is no threat to any half-way civilised country with rule of law. Any country that prosecutes war criminals or genocidal maniacs will have no quarrel with the ICC. It is a court of last resort. Fourth, maybe because they didn't think the US to be a half-way civilised country, the Republicans blocked any possibility of an American being charged from the beginning. A moral black eye, and easy propaganda for people who hate America, but again it didn't matter. Fifth, none of Bolton's bluster has any practical impact on the ICC whatsoever, but sixth it does make the US look stupid, and more than that imply it is a country willing to commit crimes against humanity and suspend the rule of law, and it puts up a template for despots and murderers to follow.

So you set up the game, invite people to play. You make the rules, and stack them so that you cannot lose under any circumstance. Then you kick over the game, say you are afraid to lose, and run home.

It doesn't matter in a practical sense, it is what it is, but the gross stupidity of it boggles the mind. The US now has a government intent on doing maximal damage to its own country for, in this case, no benefit whatsoever.

Third, the ICC is no threat to any half-way civilised country with rule of law.

Is the USA an "half-way civilized country with rule of law"? It seems not anymore.

We are dangerously near catastrophe.

Is the USA an "half-way civilized country with rule of law"? It seems not anymore.

Somewhere in mid-80's I read about Reagan's Star Wars plan. It was quite literally called that, the plan to nuclearise the atmosphere as if it belonged to the USA. I got the same sense about the USA back then as many do about North Korea now. Except that North Korea is only able to accidentally nuke themselves, while USA really is warring all over the world indiscriminately and unaccountably. Sad world.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
International laws never applied to the US. They were merely considered useful instruments to push through US interests and if this didn't work those laws were simply ignored.

As for its allies, the USA always applied the "carrot and stick" policy. Only problem with that, sooner or later the USA may run out of carrots.
For US allies this means, either to get used to sticks without carrots or to reconsider the scope of the alliance.

According to the book, Fear, Mattis and Tillerson tried to clue Trump in. They took Trump to the Pentagon tank where Mattison explained the 70 years of agreements and alliances after WW 2 that gave us domination. Tillerson added that's how the peace was kept. Pax Americana. Trump blew up, screaming its all bs. A fit similar to what Hitler was known for near the end of WW 2.

Naturally  the real reason is that we had the world in our hands with third world countries being our cheap manufacturing base or industrial countries supplying goods at reasonable prices, But mostly a low cost labor base, dedicated to the  comfort Americans via consumer goods. The real advantage was always tailored to advantage America, to keep our consumer goods living standard high. Similar to what England did mid 19th century.

We still see that with the advantages most Americans have in consumer goods, imported goods. Compare that to domestic products and services many of which are overpriced and not that good. The healthcare industry and Internet services come to mind. We are still good in agriculture, farming, even if they are highly subsidized such as with the Ethanol boondoggle.

Trump can't be clued in. He defies Cluedom.

Somewhere in mid-80's I read about Reagan's Star Wars plan. It was quite literally called that, the plan to nuclearise the atmosphere as if it belonged to the USA.

The Star Wars plan was an antinuclear program. While both the Soviets and US had plans to put nukes in orbit the plan was to put a satellite laser system in orbit to shoot down Soviet missiles (I'm sure other uses were considered). Either way I believe a treaty between the concerned parties made the need obsolete.

Only problem with that, sooner or later the USA may run out of carrots.

Done right - they don't ever get the carrot.

The Star Wars plan was an antinuclear program.

Of course that's what they said. Yet the idea was a straightforward nuclear arms race.

It didn't happen and the exact opposite of an arms race followed. I must of missed your point.

It was the modelling 0 to MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction was the desired state, because for any non-suicidal actor the destruction of their own side was not a winning strategy. As long as all parties were rational none would take the steps that led to MAD.

I say all instead of both, as China was a complication. China didn't and doesn't have a MAD-level arsenal, they have a nuclear deterrent. But according to a Chinese leak of unknown veracity the Soviet Union planned a nuclear attack on China, just a few years after MacArthur wanted the same during the Korean war. Now however the US blocked it, stating that a nuclear attack on China would be the same as one on the US, in effect escalating up to MAD.

MAD also made a third war in Europe unwinnable. Assuming the NATO defences were able to halt Warsaw Pact forces, it would be too tempting for the Soviet Union to use tactical weapons to penetrate and pass those defences. In that case it would be in US tactical interest to escalate as the resulting nuclear no man's land would halt that offensive. This system was unstable and would likely lead to MAD, thus not a venture to try.

The argument against Star Wars, anti-missile defences to shoot down approaching nuclear missiles, was that they too made MAD more likely. They might tempt the US to a first strike, hoping that the anti-missiles could reduce the retaliatory strike to something tolerable. There is some truth to that argument, if the US was put in a position to choose between a risky first strike or hold back and risk MAD.

But the real risk was, and still is, the ICBMs.  The other two parts of the nuclear triad, submarines and airborne, are not particularly vulnerable to first strike, but ICBMs are. If either side thought that a first strike was winnable, they might be tempted to do so rather than risk MAD. When both sides knew that the other side might attempt a first strike we had an unstable situation, either by a preemptive first strike, or by a preemptive retaliatory strike before those weapons were destroyed by the other side's first strike. With buggy detector systems on both sides, and a very short time frame from the weapons were fired to they reached their targets, the risks of accidental MAD were real. To some extent this was countered with a massive redundancy, but Star Wars could counter the counter.

It didn't happen and the exact opposite of an arms race followed. I must of missed your point.

You did not miss the point. You only miss the facts. In your world, SU collapsed by itself, instead of under the pressure of the nuclear arms race. In your world, the number of countries with nuclear weapons is going down, not up. I'll let you have your facts as you please.

NY Times has a good overview of the whole saga of Russian meddling in the Trump elections: The Plot to Subvert an Election
(https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html)

Enough clues there to reverse engineer the journalism, to retrace the steps and to draw one's own conclusions.

NY Times ...

The New York Times as Judge and Jury (https://consortiumnews.com/2018/09/21/the-new-york-times-as-judge-and-jury/)

I specifically mentioned that the reader must follow the clues to reverse engineer the journalism. A good article enables the reader to do it. That particular one is a good article. The critics that I have read either do not know the hows and whys of journalism or do not care.

There is a difference between asserting on the one hand and reporting assertions on the other. Journalists do the latter, not the former. Critics should take note of the difference. Journalism does not prove; it informs.

The belief that there is something extraordinarily sinister about "corporate media" is eery in the context of pro-Putinism. Particularly when the pro-Putinism speedily acquires elements of pro-Trumpism.

Just think: In what way is the state of journalism in Russia better than in "corporate media"? Would Trump make a better journalist than anybody he is criticising? Why has he kept giving interviews and shown up for talk shows all these decades?

Both pro-Putinism and pro-Trumpism are authoritarian mindset in the making. If you actually suppressed "corporate media", what semblance of free speech would you be left with?

Conspiracy theorists like to think of themselves as the only ones with a critical mind, while everybody else in their view supposedly thinks exactly what journalists tell them to think.

Guess what, hardly anyone turns to newspapers or tv to obtain ready-made thoughts. Instead, they read and listen to see if there is anything worthy of some consideration. Mostly there isn't, sometimes there is. They read for reference, not for blind affirmation.

From a review of the latest Trump book - Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward

[Chief economic adviser Gary] Cohn’s obsession was to get Trump to understand that trade deficits don’t have to mean America is losing: he wanted the president to know that it’s possible to be in deficit and still to be growing the economy. But Trump soon lost patience. ‘I don’t want to hear that, it’s bullshit.’

Steve Bannon, at this point the president’s chief strategist, and therefore someone who had to be invited along, decided to jump in. What’s the value in defending the international order if America’s allies won’t give anything back? Trump had made it clear he wanted to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. ‘“Is one of your fucking great allies up in the European Union” going to back the president?’ Bannon wanted to know. ‘Give me one guy. One country. One company. Who’s going to back sanctions?’ Now Trump perked up. ‘“That’s what I’m talking about,” Trump said. “He just made my point. You talk about all these guys as allies. There’s not an ally up there. Answer Steve’s question. Who’s going to back us?”’ No one could answer Bannon’s question, so the president moved on to Afghanistan, where he couldn’t understand why he was spending so much money for so little return. ‘When are we going to start winning some wars? We’ve got these charts. When are we going to win some wars? Why are you jamming this down my throat?’ The charts weren’t helping. In fact they were making things worse. ‘You should be killing guys,’ Trump told the trained killers in the room. ‘You don’t need a strategy to kill people.’

By now it was clear that the meeting had backfired horribly. But no one knew how to get out of it.

You don't need a strategy to kill people? Hmmm...

The Putin/Trump approach to delegitimising the search for truth is to make it an aspect of team loyalty. News is "fake" or "mainstream", (supposedly just as bad), not because they failed in the process, but because they are not Team Trump. Thus truth will have no inherent advantage over falsehood. Whichever suits the team narrative wins, we get alternative truths.

Now journalists have not always been the best exponents of truth. First of all "news" is by nature different from information. News have to be "new" and emotionally engaging, so you generally miss the real and important changes, as they are filtered out. Most news channels are for-profit, or for-ideology. While journalists are taught to make that subservient to for-truth, in practice this is hard to achieve. Finally we have cultural blindness, or simply laziness. People, including journalists, are not used to see the world in a different way than they are accustomed to, and thus miss stories that could be obvious in hindsight. Add to that deadlines and that it is easier and usually more successful to follow an existing narrative than making up a new one, and most journalism will be bland.

Those shortcomings acknowledged, we are better served by incomplete inquiries and partial criticism of power, than none. Those in power know that, thus the continuous attacks on news media.

Is this where I vote for Trump?
 :o

Just fill out this circle: o.

Study shows two-thirds of U.S. terrorism tied to right-wing extremists (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists)

“A Quartz analysis of the database shows that almost two-thirds of terror attacks in the (United States) last year were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations,” its posting says.
The remaining attacks, the web site said, “were driven by left-wing ideologies … and Islamic extremism.”
Globally, terrorist attacks dropped from about 17,000 in 2014 to about 11,000 in 2017, including a 40 percent decline in the Middle East, according to Quartz's analysis of the START data.
But the United States has seen a recent surge in terror-related violence, with 65 attacks last year, up from six in 2006, it said.

Fortunately two-thirds of Trump supporters are too stupid to be effective terrorists... or much else.

Yes, if you are going to have terrorists, you want them to be stupid.

Just like the second-generation ISIL as the first generation got killed. Yes, that looney wolf decentralised terrorism make them harder to prevent or predict, but that is offset by an incompetence that make them as likely to get killed as to kill some bystanders.

Yet, how stupid and deluded can you get? Jade Helm, Pizzagate, Q Anon, connected to older, but still idiotic, ideas like white genocide.  It is the idiocracy/infowarification/infantilisation of terrorism, the slenderman for the grown-up and still confused.

Old-style terrorism may be deranged and vile, but at least it had a theory. Down with the king, up with my religion, we want to rule this piece of land, the dictatorship of the proletariat, lynching or pogroms of uppity minorities, urban guerrilla, even kill them because they are not kind to animals or they are performing abortions.

American McVeigh, Saudi bin Laden, Norwegian Behring Breivik may have been deranged, but they had a logic. "I want to become the king instead of the king. The Americans are protecting the king. Let us start a global meaningless war to exhaust the Americans so that they will no longer support the king. Then we will get rid of him." or "Muslim immigrants are the enemy. They want to take over Europe from within. We can't attack the enemy, because then they will get sympathy. Let us instead map out the traitors, we could for instance class them into categories A, B, and C. Then we will kill these traitors or their children until they support Muslims no more. Then we will start killing Muslims." Ridiculously complicated, breathtakingly bloody-minded, but you can see where they are going. 

But: "Let me murder some peaceful old Jews because there is a small group of people fleeing their Central American homeland, who are secretly Muslim terrorists who will somehow cross the US border to commence white genocide"?

Study shows two-thirds of U.S. terrorism tied to right-wing extremists (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists)

Quote

“A Quartz analysis of the database shows that almost two-thirds of terror attacks in the (United States) last year were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations,” its posting says.
The remaining attacks, the web site said, “were driven by left-wing ideologies … and Islamic extremism.”
Globally, terrorist attacks dropped from about 17,000 in 2014 to about 11,000 in 2017, including a 40 percent decline in the Middle East, according to Quartz's analysis of the START data.
But the United States has seen a recent surge in terror-related violence, with 65 attacks last year, up from six in 2006, it said.

Yes, the wave of Islamic terrorism ídoes seem to have spawned a resurgence of home grown terrorism, but not just in America of course. One could cite non-Islamic groups in many countries ... Russia, Spain, UK, Sweden, Germany and so on. One might be able to find a clear cause and effect there.  Action and Reaction.
Just recently, in the UK , MI5 has taken over the fight against "Right Wing" terrorism, although why the term "Right Wing" is used seems simplistic. Top, Bottom, Left of Right  ... Terrorism is Terrorism.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/28/mi5-lead-battle-against-uk-rightwing-extremists-police-action

Islamists and right-wing terror groups (the European version anyway) share world view, terror theory, and to some extent even ideals. They just disagree on which team to win in the post-democratic society.

It seems to be a sensible reorganisation, btw. In Sweden it has partly been delegated to local counties, not a clever idea.

A gross worm creature has been formally named after Trump to sound an alarm about his climate policies

(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5c1a36862a5b74044824a365-750-375.jpg)

EnviroBuild, a company that makes sustainable building materials, paid $25,000 to name the limbless amphibian Dermophis donaldtrumpi as part of a fundraiser for the Rainforest Trust, a nonprofit conservation group.

[...]

"EnviroBuild is not an overtly political organisation, but we do feel very strongly that everyone should do everything they can to leave the world in a better way than they found it," [an EnviroBuild's cofounder said.]

[...]

It is not the first creature named after Trump. In early 2017, a small moth with yellowish-white scales that look like hair was named Neopalpa donaldtrumpi.

 I wanna see a pic of the amphibian. Someone messed up.  :mad:

In all seriousness they need to stop naming stuff after the spin d[ouche]r.

I was kind of thinking the same. The number of insect species or craters on the moon is higher than anyone would care about, but there aren't that many amphibian species around, around 7000 supposedly. Spending one of those names on a politician seems wasteful somehow. Then again, the name was up for auction as if it was some sports stadium, so why not.

For a picture of the little critter, I refer to BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46614138)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/AB78/production/_104869834_5184.jpg)

I agree. They should stop being mean to amphibians. Trump will be soon gone, but the poor amphibian will be stuck with the insulting name for quite a while longer.

US official confirms that Trump tweeted out a picture from a classified intelligence briefing

(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5d696f382e22af36170e43d6-480-253.jpg)

A US official told CNBC on Friday that a photo of an Iranian launchpad that President Donald Trump tweeted out in the afternoon came from an intelligence briefing Trump received earlier in the day.

[...]

"I think I just got flexed on by the president," David Schmerler, a leading expert on open-source imagery analysis, told Business Insider of the image. Schmerler had spent hours the night before analyzing the widely available pictures of the failed launch but was blown away by the quality of Trump's image."

So, Trump is still getting briefed with classified intelligence materials. Dear officials, where is your sense of responsibility?

We need a Bureau of Presidential Tweets, or somesuch.

How about a Presidential Bureau of Tweeting the Truth?

Speaking of tweeting the truth, I still can't believe Trump tweeted a Sharpie altered map to defend incorrectly saying Alabama was going to be hit worse than expected by Hurricane Dorian. Of course, the hurricane missed that state completely. What really happened was that his info about the possible paths the hurricane could take that was about four days out of date. This guy is ridiculous.

Speaking of tweeting the truth, ...

That was meant ironically, just in case someone didn't notice. ;)

Confused By The Impeachment Process? This Flowchart Should Help https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/benking/confused-by-the-impeachment-process-this-flowchart-should

Basically, after the announcement the House figures out the evidence, and if they think there is enough of it, it will move to the Senate who will figure out how to do a trial. It obviously will never get that far. The evidence is overwhelming, but even more overwhelming is the fear that the impeachment process, messy as it is, smears the party who pushes for it.

In 2017 Trump both-sided white supremacists and Nazis in Charlottesville.

In 2019 he both-sided the child rapists and torturers of IS.

It is hard to imagine him sinking any lower, but given time he will surely find a way.

It is hard to imagine him sinking any lower, but given time he will surely find a way.

There's hope for better! :devil:

(https://i.ibb.co/JsFqN84/Nancy-Pelosi.jpg)

 

I don't expect much from Pelosi. She fought to prevent impeachment until her hand was forced by more progressive, restless house members. She does despise Trump and will follow up now that the impeachment band wagon is rolling.

But the reality is she's a corporate Democrat who fights to enrich the rich and will fight any healthcare plan that may hurt the hospital and insurance industries. She's for Obamacare but that's not decent paid for healthcare considering the average Obamacare deductible is 4,000 per year (the amount you put in before they pay) and the Bronze plan copays are 40% (after you pay the 4,000 then they will pay 60% of medical expense, you pay 40%). If anyone tried to apply Obamacare to Europeans there would be riots. Medical bankruptcies are 2/3 of U.S. bankruptcies where most filing have medical insurance.  We're told we are the richest country in the world but then we are also told we cannot afford a healthcare system that is in place in most of the rest of first world countries.

Oh, she'll bleat about progressiveness, helping the middle and working class, etc. But even when Democrats like her are in power we see tax laws that primarily benefit corporations and the very rich. Which is why we have seen tax rates for the very rich of 90% in 1950's go to the much lower rates we see now.

Remember before the French presidential elections there were investigations of some candidates, one causing Fillon to drop out? No one in France stopped the investigations because it could be seen a political. Here the U.S. government had evidence of illegal Russian manipulation but the investigation was prevented. The Attorney General prevented it with Obama's concurrence on advice of Pelosi because McConnell threatened that Republicans will make it seen to be political. So, so much for Pelosi's political smarts.

Yes, instead of impeachment, she'd rather spend time on the social circuit. The many embassy parties, corporate parties, social events, fund raisers. Events where she can wear her 5 or 10 thousand dollar designer outfit and hobnob with the social elite, the business elite and politicians of both parties. Where they pat each other on their backs on how wonderful and deserving they are. That is the reality.

The most obvious contender for "what Trump gets out of this" is that he has been impeached and is going into an election year with stubbornly underwater approval ratings, and sees war with Iran as a Hail Mary pass to whip Americans into a wartime fever — much as happened behind Bush in 2003 — which might be enough to drag him across the line in what will likely be a close election.

(Trump on Nov. 16, 2011:
"Our president [Obama] will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected — and as sure as you're sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.")

One of the most predictable aspects of Trump's narcissism is that he always projects his own flaws and evil impulses onto others. If he accused Obama of feeling an urge to start a war for political advantage, we can pretty much bet that same impulse lurks in Trump's own heart.

What a nasty little writer. But who can prove her wrong?

Seems rather hyperbolic, but then again Trump is a walking talking hyperbole.

Because the war with Iran failed to catch fire, impeachment goes on.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYl-prpRePU[/video]

Trump will be re-elected President in due course in nutjobland.

OVER 200,000 SIGN PETITION CALLING FOR END TO LIVE COVERAGE OF TRUMP'S CORONAVIRUS BRIEFINGS

"President Trump is blatantly using the news organizations' extensive, live coverage to freely campaign for a second term," the petition claims. "It is wrong and dangerous to provide so much unfettered airtime to someone who is happily, shamelessly spreading terrible, damaging misinformation that is already costing fellow Americans their lives."

Rather than broadcasting live coverage of the White House's COVID-19 briefings, the MoveOn petition asks broadcasters to monitor the briefings instead "and have your anchors and correspondents quickly share appropriately edited valuable accurate parts."

The "valuable accurate parts," the petition states would be the statements coming "from medical experts."

The medical experts do separate interviews as well. Just quit watching the president make a fool out of himself. (duh)

Until now I didn't see a way he could really lose the election.  Too bad the Dems have two unlikely to get real votes now.

Both those two big parties over the pond are corporate leaning ones - although one has the edge in that matter. Neither is capable of doing anything about the big issues and indeed major problems that just carry on in the country. Just a pity that neither deals with the big unfortunate records.

OVER 200,000 SIGN PETITION CALLING FOR END TO LIVE COVERAGE OF TRUMP'S CORONAVIRUS BRIEFINGS

Quote from: https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-100000-sign-petition-calling-end-live-coverage-trumps-coronavirus-briefings-1495195

"President Trump is blatantly using the news organizations' extensive, live coverage to freely campaign for a second term," the petition claims. "It is wrong and dangerous to provide so much unfettered airtime to someone who is happily, shamelessly spreading terrible, damaging misinformation that is already costing fellow Americans their lives."

Rather than broadcasting live coverage of the White House's COVID-19 briefings, the MoveOn petition asks broadcasters to monitor the briefings instead "and have your anchors and correspondents quickly share appropriately edited valuable accurate parts."

The "valuable accurate parts," the petition states would be the statements coming "from medical experts."

I’d have no problem with that. He routinely dismisses the views of his medical experts. All he wants is media expose, the degenerate.

Poor young man and an equal pity that democracy is a bit of a chat more than practice!

Trump call COVID-19 "genius" and "brilliant" in his press conference today. I think he meant "resilient" or "adapted".

I have to admit; I totally get why Trump supporters like him. He's about as articulate as the average redneck. Seems like "tough" or "defensive" would be more accurate and still fit in the vernacular.

"Look folks, it surprised us, okay. SARS came thru a few years ago and was like, "See you can't cause a true pandemic." and COVID-19 was like, "Hold my beer."... You just can't predict what happens next, guys." :cheers:

I have to admit; I totally get why Trump supporters like him. He's about as articulate as the average redneck. Seems like "tough" or "defensive" would be more accurate and still fit in the vernacular.

I don't understand how "this guy's as incompetent at that job as I would be" makes him someone to vote for though.  :worried:

I don't understand how "this guy's as incompetent at that job as I would be" makes him someone to vote for though.  :worried:

Well, this is the reason why I listen to mediocre and relatively poor singers - so I feel no shame singing along.

Vennaskond, Maailm lõpeb maikuus (The world will end in May)

Trump this, Trump that, but the fact is that he made available a financial help to the US that is the TRIPLE* of what the EU did.

* listen to that on tv, while not paying attention, so don't ask me for the source I need to verify it. Doesn't surprise me at all.

I'd say that's a fairly meaningless number in and of itself. We don't need a trillion Dollar emergency plan to implement a facsimile of our existing standards in welfare and health care coverage.

Also every European state probably has at least twice the budget of comparable American states, and the EU conversely quite significantly less than the US federal government. If you can divert a 100 million yourself or if you have to beg for a 100 million from the federal government, the end result comes to about the same.

So without knowing more specifics, it could also be plausible to say only three times as much.

Incidentally, the EU has pledged €15.6 billion to help fight corona abroad. The US $500 million.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_604
https://www.usaid.gov/coronavirus

our existing standards in welfare and health care coverage.

the financial help I mentioned is not for hospitals is for the economic ruin that will come out of the corona crisis.

Presidential press conferences are getting even more fun. Today's was an absolute shit-show starting out.

I'm no Trump fan, but this isn't the time for the media to do its usual mincing of words with him. It's embarrassing the questions they've asked. If it's not a loaded question, then it seems like they haven't listened to anything said previously. Sometimes only moments ago. What ifs can wait. They only seem to be helping him campaign - and this isn't the time for that either.

He's done some right. Can't agree with everything but the consequences of most of it will take time to even know. In a crisis where what he has said can save lives, what ifs can wait till November. Right now worry about what Congress will do next with bipartisanship deteriorating.

So without knowing more specifics, it could also be plausible to say only three times as much.

The specifics here are that, given the culture in Southern Europe, they should always get more (and they think they deserve ten times more than they get, no matter how much is given). If EU does not step in, somebody else will.

Mafia buying food for Italy's poor to exert more control (https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/mafia-buying-food-for-italys-poor-to-exert-more-control.784688)

Incidentally, the EU has pledged €15.6 billion to help fight corona abroad. The US $500 million.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_604
https://www.usaid.gov/coronavirus

Yes, I have also noticed that EU is doing much more to keep immigrants out before they arrive at the borders than USA is doing :) Sometimes such policies fail, e.g. we failed to keep the wave of Syrians out by attempting to bribe Erdogan (who just took the money and then did not deliver), but yeah, it is a solid part of official policies in EU.

given the culture in Southern Europe, they should always get more (and they think they deserve ten times more than they get, no matter how much is given).

oh! look, a new Southern European's specialist was born, God be praised. :angel:

The reality show continues. I was wondering what the fallout from yesterday would be. If you want to criticize Trump it's easy to. His pushing of hydroxychloroquine or his apparent ignorance of the Defense Production Act or Having States bid against each other for supplies FEMA should procure and disseminate or the questionable accuracy of testing he's hyped or his actually damaging tweets, like this morning about Governors mutining. Sure most of his tweets are dumb, but that statement shouldn't stand regardless of medium. Where are the legal experts explaining Constitutional Law, procedure and precedence on news reports and to the dumbass reporters? Dr. Fauci is not a politician yet they insist on making him second guess what he says when what is needed his unbiased scientific opinion. Trump stupidly retweets a hashtag and that is what's Important?

Well if 'what ifs' are a thing; What if we had Universal Healthcare? What if the Federal Government saved taxpayer money by not having States bid prices up on each other? What if the media were actually competent??? Would this of been taken serious sooner? Would Trump even be President?

I've been tired of media's dramatizations for a long time... All this has made me outright disgusted. So many things can be done to help educate and inform the people and that will help keep leaders accountable but they just spin their wheels in mud constantly.

/end rant.

Yes, I have also noticed that EU is doing much more to keep immigrants out before they arrive at the borders than USA is doing :) Sometimes such policies fail, e.g. we failed to keep the wave of Syrians out by attempting to bribe Erdogan (who just took the money and then did not deliver), but yeah, it is a solid part of official policies in EU.

But we didn't fail in helping to stage a devastating civil war in Syria fought primarily by foreign Djihadists.  All this for our infamous interests.
And since we care so much about the Syrian people we are blessing them even now with drastic economic sanctions.
These are also part of our policies.

As for Erdogan, he has us on the hook. Imagine 4-5 million Syrians flooding our EU-borders! Wonder if you can.
Also wonder what you would do. Send the Wehrmacht?  

Also wonder what you would do. Send the Wehrmacht?

I wonder the same: What would you do? :)

As to the Syrian conflict, I would have liked to see more empowerment for the Kurds. The Kurds were the only ones with the capacity to keep ISIL in line and also the only ones who had the full right to it. That done, it would have been also possible to threaten both the Syrian and Turkish regimes that Kurds would gain their own state at the expense of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Instead, EU did everything either weak or wrong in this regard.

EU is bad at wars in general. They allowed the Bosnian war to happen at their doorstep, and they permit ongoing frozen conflict zones in Abkhazia, Tiraspol, now Crimea. They never learn from the past.

As a minimum, I would like to see the kind of humanitarian engagement from EU doctors that Cuba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_medical_internationalism) is doing (https://theconversation.com/by-sending-doctors-to-italy-cuba-continues-its-long-campaign-of-medical-diplomacy-134429). We don't want to be worse than Cuba, do we?

t Cuba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_medical_internationalism) is doing (https://theconversation.com/by-sending-doctors-to-italy-cuba-continues-its-long-campaign-of-medical-diplomacy-134429). We don't want to be worse than Cuba,

But you are worse then Cuba, Cuba has a long external experience while Ussr satellite in African countries regarding medical staff, teachers/propagandists and military troops and/or advisers near the pro soviet terrorist movements. Cubans were all over the place in Africa.

edit: sorry, than not then

But you are worse then Cuba

To be clear, Portugal joined the EU a little over a month before I was born (1986) and Estonia in 2004.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2020-04-15, 12:44:41

But you are worse then Cuba

To be clear, Portugal joined the EU a little over a month before I was born (1986) and Estonia in 2004.

Hah, right. And in 1986 Estonia was still under USSR occupation. That's how I know about Cuban doctors in the first place, by the way.

But you are right, Belfrager. We (Estonia, Portugal, EU) are much worse in this aspect than Cuba. We are not even close as good.

Presidential press conferences are getting even more fun. Today's was an absolute shit-show starting out.

It is a greater risk to your health to listen to Trump than not to listen to Trump. But it seems that US media have the worst of both worlds. They attend the press conference with "critical" questions, and then allegedly at least CNN skip the medical part. Good for the ratings and the clicks I suppose.

Trump has been great for the "mainstream" media. He is living clickbait. This disease on the other hand is a killer. Nobody is advertising , so unless they have subscription income, they are slaves to the ratings and the hope the advertisers come back. Of course you have that political blockbuster coming up, but even that too is in a lull right now. A former Sanders spokesperson is too obscure to drive up conflicts, clicks, and not the least advertisers. So they go to those press conferences though nobody enjoys it.

As to the Syrian conflict, I would have liked to see more empowerment for the Kurds. The Kurds were the only ones with the capacity to keep ISIL in line and also the only ones who had the full right to it. That done, it would have been also possible to threaten both the Syrian and Turkish regimes that Kurds would gain their own state at the expense of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Instead, EU did everything either weak or wrong in this regard.

EU is bad at wars in general. They allowed the Bosnian war to happen at their doorstep, and they permit ongoing frozen conflict zones in Abkhazia, Tiraspol, now Crimea. They never learn from the past.

As a minimum, I would like to see the kind of humanitarian engagement from EU doctors that Cuba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_medical_internationalism) is doing (https://theconversation.com/by-sending-doctors-to-italy-cuba-continues-its-long-campaign-of-medical-diplomacy-134429). We don't want to be worse than Cuba, do we?

The EU war ministry is NATO. That won't change even with the US effectively suspended. Only three countries can project force the former colonial powers of France, UK and US. That won't change either. Germany won't be on that list. Our nuclear umbrella might shift from American to French.  Guess we all have to brush up our French soon.

The US is leaving the Middle East. That is irreversible, no matter if who will be in power. They will be preoccupied with East and South Asia as long as we are alive, leaving West Asia mostly behind. The religious nutters might still want to stage the final battle at Harmageddon, but that will be without the US Army. Europe and the Middle East are neighbours, and share culture and history. Will we fill up the void? You know we won't. Russia and China don't want to be seriously involved, and it won't be India's port of call either. The major powers IN the Middle East don't seem capable to resolve the situations either.

EU doesn't do wars, and didn't even exist when the Yugoslav wars began. But Post-Yugoslavia has been a modest success for the EU. All is not well on the Balkans front, but compared with practically anywhere else, it is still pretty good. Ukraine and Georgia is located in "anywhere else" in this context, not so good. Won't happen fast, particularly not with a Putinista in the White House, but time is on our side.

Of course there are no "EU doctors", but doctors from EU member countries, and they would rarely be marketed as such. It may be a weakness that they don't come with a propaganda attachment, though EU as an aggregate is a humanitarian superpower. The rest of the world is now facing what the EU, and more recently the US, has faced. There will be capacity and there will be a need.

Nobody is advertising

That's a major problem for the free press and a serious risk for democracies.

In fact, the press has already shown, during this virus situation, to be the biggest destabilizer factor for people's serenity and an open door to supporting the establishment of repression practices by governments. The less money they have the worst they'll be.

The EU war ministry is NATO. That won't change even with the US effectively suspended.

Yes, the EU war ministry is NATO, but with the US effectively suspended, the policies of NATO can be changed by whoever is left in charge and we'd better do it. These matters should not be left to the likes of W and Trump.

The US is leaving the Middle East. That is irreversible, no matter if who will be in power.

The US will forever have its meddlings in the Middle East whenever another opportunity presents itself. If not the US, then Israel, which is the same thing because these two go together.

But Post-Yugoslavia has been a modest success for the EU.

The only success is that wars have not recurred in the area for a while. It would be a better success if Bosnia had been built up with all the investments that have gone into it, but the investments have vanished instead.

Most recently Slovenia, lest you cite it as another post-Yugoslavian success story, has made a rapid turn towards a Hungary-like regime under Janša. This has been possible due to the sick way EU governs its periphery - by rigid diktat over local regulations, instead of harmonising the way external and global business and geopolitical forces are allowed to operate in periphery, which is markedly different from the core EU3 or in the "old members" or whatever to call it.

We in the periphery get that EU regulations should be harmonised and this has been done. But why the hell is e.g. Google News and Youtube main page in the Baltics suggesting near-exclusively Russian material out of the box? Why cannot we get stuff from Amazon under the same terms as Germans get them? Are we not supposed to be a single economic area among euro-currency countries? Why are border policies imposed on us without any regard to obvious threats such as Russia under Putin or the wave of Syrian immigrants? EU has managed these issues so miserably that even in Estonia we have a Trump-style party in the government right now. Luckily the PM is not of the same party, and not a Trumpite to the least bit, but he is in dire straits.

The EU treats its periphery as remote periphery, not as an organic shelter of its own heart. One can be the member of the euro club and swallow all the directives ahead of due date, but none of it matters when one is a "new member" at the periphery. We are like tiny little colonies to them. We are still treated as more of a stranger than Russia, more of a stranger than Turkey, more of a stranger than UK and USA. Wtf?!

Yeah, I know this will never change, because if there were some such ability, the EU would have learned from some of its egregious past mistakes such as the ones cited. My policy suggestion for my own country is to behave the way Southern Europe is doing: Say yes to everything, accept all the money, ask for even more, but do whatever is appropriate in our own particular interests and be happy with it. The feudal style of governance by EU directly requires a rebel serf style of response at the periphery. Of course this is destructive, but its EU's own destruction. EU never listened when we were absolutely right and never learned from the mistake when they were absolutely wrong, so let's not waste any more good effort in that direction.

It is a greater risk to your health to listen to Trump than not to listen to Trump.

His babbling is definitely dangerously misleading. He has said and enacted things like the stay home/social distancing, travel bans and encouragement by trying to give hope that things will get better, help will come. Said he trusts his medical experts who do a fair job of clarifying his townie-speak on issues and attempt to help keep panic in check. The caveat being of course he blast straight into his opinions that completely undermine any good he may of done.

But yea. listening to him wholly has an overall negative benefit to public safety. Contradictions and schoolyard name calling overshadow any serious leadership. The President's embarrassing, Congressional leaders are embarrassing, Re-reporters are re-retarded... Hell my hillbilly Governor is embarrassing. And not one worthy candidate has been able to make gains by showing they could act to do any better as elections for many loom.

The US will forever have its meddlings in the Middle East whenever another opportunity presents itself. If not the US, then Israel, which is the same thing because these two go together.

That is Netanyahu's biggest policy blunder, and he has made too many to count. He has tied himself to the anchor of USNS Trump. Democratic support for him, and for Israel, is decaying. From a very high point, mind you, but the trend is clear. Israel has neglected the party that is likely to dominate US politics for some time, and Netanyahu is going to hurt Israel long after he's gone. In that regard President Biden is the best thing that could happen to Israel. He is an old-time Democrat and Israel loyalist. A later (and much younger) Democratic president will not be so easy to handle.

Republican support is likely to remain solid, particularly with the White Evangelicals who are becoming quite interchangeable with the MAGAs. The deplorable contingent is not so keen, but can come around due to all those Muslims around Israel (still stunning how far and fast antisemitism has grown in the US since about 2015; Trump didn't cause it, but is part of the same wave). 

The US is following the path of Europe, only with a delay of about 30 years. 50 years ago mainstream European support for Israel was hardcore, unquestioning. The far left was taking over from the far right in their support of Palestine and criticism of Israel (suspect Soviet involvement, but there probably were many factors). Now the European love for Israel is at best conditional. 

Saudi-Arabia has been more clever, they have oiled Democratic and Republican pockets alike. Trump's polarising effect may hurt the Saudis too. Rank-and-file Democrats (and Republicans as well) are not so sweet on the Oil Kingdom. The halo of MBS, once the object of so many fawning articles, has been shred. Will take a lot of money, or a successful coup, to fix that. 

US policy in the Middle East will not fundamentally change, it just will grow more distant with time. The EU won't have that distance. Our border is just 100 miles from Syria (and 200 miles from Libya). "Peace in the Middle East" is a vanity project for US presidents. For us it is a long-term necessity.   

It is a greater risk to your health to listen to Trump than not to listen to Trump.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffun.drno.de%2Fpics%2Fcorona%2Fnew-mask.jpg&hash=c411bc378974628614f2987eaa599a69" rel="cached" data-hash="c411bc378974628614f2987eaa599a69" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://fun.drno.de/pics/corona/new-mask.jpg)

We in the periphery get that EU regulations should be harmonised and this has been done. But why the hell is e.g. Google News and Youtube main page in the Baltics suggesting near-exclusively Russian material out of the box? Why cannot we get stuff from Amazon under the same terms as Germans get them? Are we not supposed to be a single economic area among euro-currency countries? Why are border policies imposed on us without any regard to obvious threats such as Russia under Putin or the wave of Syrian immigrants? EU has managed these issues so miserably that even in Estonia we have a Trump-style party in the government right now. Luckily the PM is not of the same party, and not a Trumpite to the least bit, but he is in dire straits.

The EU treats its periphery as remote periphery, not as an organic shelter of its own heart. One can be the member of the euro club and swallow all the directives ahead of due date, but none of it matters when one is a "new member" at the periphery. We are like tiny little colonies to them. We are still treated as more of a stranger than Russia, more of a stranger than Turkey, more of a stranger than UK and USA. Wtf?!

Yeah, I know this will never change, because if there were some such ability, the EU would have learned from some of its egregious past mistakes such as the ones cited. My policy suggestion for my own country is to behave the way Southern Europe is doing: Say yes to everything, accept all the money, ask for even more, but do whatever is appropriate in our own particular interests and be happy with it. The feudal style of governance by EU directly requires a rebel serf style of response at the periphery. Of course this is destructive, but its EU's own destruction. EU never listened when we were absolutely right and never learned from the mistake when they were absolutely wrong, so let's not waste any more good effort in that direction.

Centre-periphery is a major tension inside the EU, more important than e.g. the tension small and large countries. possibly more even than geographic subdivision (North vs South, East vs West). The centre of EU will remain in Western Europe, that's where the most people and the most money reside, and communications are the best. We in the north might decry France. People in the south might decry Germany (and people in Italy decry the Netherlands), but that won't change matters. Estonia could try to get a bigger population (e.g. take in more refugees) or grow rich quick (with the political influence that provides), but it would remain periphery. In a bigger context the periphery is not necessarily so peripheral. Greece is peripheral, but closest to Asia and East Africa. Portugal is closest to South America and West Africa, Estonia to Moscow.

The EU is "feudal" only in the sense that in extremely feudalistic societies the highest level of power (i.e. the king) had preciously little direct power. The real power lied with the nobles, sometimes even their vassals. That is close to my preferred model of the EU, as a treaty organisation, a Hanseatic League if you wish. Such an organisation cannot do what you here ask it to do.

The real EU is slightly more of a supernational organisation, but again the power lies with the EU members, not the EU itself.

but again the power lies with the EU members, not the EU itself.

The power lies with some EU members. It is not a one-man (country)-one-vote organization. Smaller, peripheric countries need to be smarter than the central pachyderms.

Russia and Putin are a threat to us? Typical Western propaganda doing well

The real power lied with the nobles, sometimes even their vassals. That is close to my preferred model of the EU, as a treaty organisation, a Hanseatic League if you wish. Such an organisation cannot do what you here ask it to do.

Hanseatic League had nothing feudal about it. It was a treaty organisation of merchants, trading both among themselves and the rest of the  world. I wish EU were something about a set of rules for merchants, but it isn't. If EU were like Hanseatic league, Apple would be unable to get tax breaks in Ireland and Amazon and Google should be following the same rules in every member country, but they don't.

EU is a club of technocrats making rules about budgets, tariffs, and their own club meetings. They do not have any noticeable economic goals, except fiscal and statistical. Much less do they have any external policy goals, yet they have taken away external policy from individual countries.

EU has achieved unity in some irrelevant statistical ideals for themselves, and they are merrily ready to stifle internal small and medium enterprises and any lesser member states with it. This only manages to break down the local integrity outside the centre and thus also any sense of unity within EU. Therefore whenever Russia or USA or Google or Amazon wants to demolish the EU for their own policy goals, they can do it. You see, Russia, USA, Google, Amazon etc. happen to have  clear policy goals, economic goals such as how to create a market and exploit it as thoroughly as possible. If EU is not up to responding to this (and it keeps proving that it is not), then it is not worth having.

There had to be, absolutely had to be a common policy and solidarity about how to meet Syrian refugees and now how to deal with the pandemic, to help the countries where the threat is most immediate. Total fail. EU is nothing when it comes to things that matter.  

The real EU is slightly more of a supernational organisation, but again the power lies with the EU members, not the EU itself.

EU skeptics and enthusiasts alike are correct that EU is, for practical purposes, a federal country with an undisputed capital, certainly when it comes to the eurozone. Within eurozone, bookkeeping is in the hands of Germany and France who call the shots for the rest of the eurozone members. Sweden and Norway are outside, so maybe you do not feel this as sharply. Poland, Czech, and Hungary are also outside, and they can see very well what is happening around them to those who are inside the eurozone. And they use their chance to rebel. Not that rebellion is good and smart, but that rebellion is the only way to demonstrate independence or at least autonomy. The feudal attitude by EU has taken away the opportunity to have peaceful and harmonious autonomy.

Russia and Putin are a threat to us? Typical Western propaganda doing well

Says the guy who watches the propaganda channel RT.

Quote from: jax on 2020-04-19, 20:24:48

but again the power lies with the EU members, not the EU itself.

The power lies with some EU members. It is not a one-man (country)-one-vote organization. Smaller, peripheric countries need to be smarter than the central pachyderms.

I could agree with that. E3 (Britain, France, Germany) have called the shots. Now that Britain has been kicked out, the dynamics have changed. The E2+1 don't have voting majority in the EU anymore. If the rest of EU voted against France and Germany, they would win. Of course that won't happen. Some of us would gripe against France, others against Germany. Regionalism hasn't happened much either. It might make sense that e.g. Portugal and Spain cooperated, or Sweden and Denmark. In practice half the time, thereabout, they have politically opposed governments, and politics trumps geography. And every few months there is a new election somewhere in Europe. 

There had to be, absolutely had to be a common policy and solidarity about how to meet Syrian refugees and now how to deal with the pandemic, to help the countries where the threat is most immediate. Total fail. EU is nothing when it comes to things that matter.

The only thing that solves your problem would be the United States of Europe, with a central government and local governors to ensure the same policies are applied equally all over Europe. But then you'll need a central army also, isn't it?
Never. The last thing we need is some Nordic Trump.
Federalism is intolerable. The EU most be limited to economic/monetarist issues.

The only thing that solves your problem would be the United States of Europe...

It would be quite fine if EU were more of a trade association and a humanitarian organisation. Such entities do not need to be United States or federal governments with their own armies.

But instead the EU is a politico-administrative customs union. No matter how thin it claims to be, it has the core ingredients of a federal government with its own monetary policy and fiscal directives. It is a very big deal when member states cannot use budget deficits and tariffs to balance trade deficits and other local economic imbalances ad crises, while also own currency has been taken away from them. The EU is taking away too much on this point. At the same time, the missing characteristics in EU government, such as missing own army, judicial branch, a parliament with a power to ratify laws and treaties (for the govt to follow, not the other way round), and proper economic policies (other than statistical, such that would respond to current economic forces that need responding to), are also painfully felt. EU is both too thin and too fat at the same time, because it is the wrong type of organisation.

This problem cannot be solved except by annihilation and a whole new start. And it will not be a better start. European political elite is only able to agree on things that touch everyone least, resulting in pointless "principles" that do not solve any of the issues that pressed people to seek the union.

... own currency has been taken away from them.

Sorry, but the above is false. Nobody has taken anybody's currency away!
It was given up voluntary for short-term interests. It was tempting and convenient to make debts with interest rates nearly zero and to win elections by doing so. In their greed for the new currency many countries even gave manipulated figures regarding their economic status.

Put it simply - for weak economies in competition with healthy ones, a strong common currency is deadly on the long run.
To affirm now that their currency was taken away is ludicrous to say the least.

Trump's ghost writer speaks out a bit.

I never imagined that writing a book for a buffoonish real estate developer could eventually help get him elected president of the United States. The fact that it did is a source of shame and regret I will always carry.

There is still 1 out of 6 who have confidence in Trump doing the right thing, according to this poll (https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/). Wonder where they have been the last four years.

(https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/09/PG_2020.09.15_U.S.-Image_0-05.png)

Oh, right.

(https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/09/PG_2020.09.15_U.S.-Image_0-06.png)

I am glad I still live in a democracy and feel sorry for armies of unfortunates in the ex-colonies stuck with what they have. Conned as much as the 3rd Reich and USSR unfortunates! :lol:

Trump Tests Positive for Covid-19, and the World Shudders (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/world/reactions-trump-positive-covid-test.html)

Fake news!

Some commentators noted that it was a grim reminder of a virus that does not distinguish between rich and poor, weak and powerful.

[…]

Wang Huiyao, the founder and president of the Center for China and Globalization, an influential research group in Beijing, said, “When the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, can catch this, the virus has no boundaries.”

A most peculiar way of phrasing that. One imagines the virus distinguishes between, say, Merkel and Trump, even if the virus doesn't distinguish between me and Merkel.

Well, you could reasonably say that being poor is a comorbidity with Covid-19, or at least a risk factor.  Being rich and powerful is an advantage here too.

Question is if this will change the administration policy on the disease, and their current wilful high-risk strategy.


Trump admin. overrules CDC director on extending ban on cruises (http://Trump admin. overrules CDC director on extending ban on cruises)

Assuming a mild or asymptomatic disease, this would be a reasonable course correction. Maximise the sympathy, improving their reelection chances, and minimise the death toll at the same time. 

Trump Tests Positive for Covid-19, and the World Shudders (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/world/reactions-trump-positive-covid-test.html)

Fake news!

Seen this hundreds of time today.  :whistle:

A fancy series of animated graphs of Trump's tax returns, finally https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes-timeline.html

A lightning summary:
 - Trump only paid taxes for a moment when making a profit from The Apprentice tv show and licensing his name all over the place, but soon got a $72.9m tax refund from IRS instead, and IRS is now auditing itself because of this.
 - As the prez, he has been paying $750 in income tax.
 - Instead of in USA, he has been paying tens and hundreds of thousands of USD in taxes in Panama, India, and Philippines.
 - Trump has not paid "millions of dollars in income tax" as most recently claimed in his "debate". Not by a long shot, not even considering the income taxes he has paid all around the world.

Listening to the second debate with Trump now. Less interjection and yelling, but thus far he has not uttered a single sentence without falsehood or false boasting. I'll get back to this thread if he gets one full sentence right.

Still does not matter a jot which of the two is elected President because it makes no dashed difference to tens of millions of Americans in bother for decades.

Indeed the election process in nutjobland is a typical farce and often looks immature and not too bright.Conferences full of attendees who wave placards on poles and very little definitive stuff given by speakers no matter whether Democrat or Republican. The tens of millions who are food-stamp holders and vast number homeless and so on will still be there as a damn routine tradition. It has once strong continuance - farce.

Trump's last-ditch effort to recruit LGBTQ voters continues in Minnesota

Republican National Committee adviser and former cabinet member Richard Grenell on Saturday in Minneapolis praised President Donald Trump as the "first pro-gay president" — a baseless claim he has been pushing in recent weeks.

In October, Trump and his campaign sent Grenell — the country's first openly gay cabinet member who served as the acting director of national intelligence from February to May — to a dozen "Trump Pride" events in battleground states including Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina....

Addressing a sparsely populated room of about 60 attendees, Grenell emphasized the Republican party as being the "pro-gay" party and claimed that Democrats now shut down the diversity of political viewpoints within the party and among LGBTQ people....

Many in the predominantly white male audience were attending with the Minnesota chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national group that says it aims to advocate for LGBTQ conservatives and allies. The group has not donated to any federal candidates or PACs per The Center for Responsive Politics, but has raised close to $13,000 and has spent about $5,000 in the 2020 election cycle. In 2018, it donated around $5,000 to Republican candidates.

Meanwhile, evangelicals and Catholics still think they must urgently vote for Trump to save the country, to keep family and pro-life  values and "freedom of religion". Naturally, because they don't follow "fake news media", but their own FB and Twitter echochambers.

it basically for tens of millions of Americans mean sod all who wins. I have described on the forum tens millions on food stamps legions who are widely homeless, jail people numbers and so on. Even at a Presidential the place is daft enough to have an electoral college. So these national mass failings continue under both Republicans and Democrats. Must also remind even under the groans on Trump it has been armies of Democrats who went massively bananas on the streets with violence, raiding shops and so on. US party conference routinely are juvenile to put it bluntly with lots standing around the even with long poles and boards on the top and speeches are juvenile. Party conferences are childish and head shaking. So basically the terrible state of prisoner numbers people on death row, nowhere to live and food stamp numbers exist under both Democrats and Republicans.

Many of people might not be too keen on Trump but there will be no great improvement under Biden. Sad that the rel idea of democracy in the ex-colonies is just a word and means little in practice for an army of people.

because they don't follow "fake news media", but their own FB and Twitter echochambers

Myopic rubbish, ersi: Where do you get "your" news from?

Even at a Presidential the place is daft enough to have an electoral college.

In Great Britain, the locally elected representatives go behind closed doors to select their leaders, who then go behind closed doors to select the Prime Minister... Much more "democratic," you see!

Myopic rubbish, ersi: Where do you get "your" news from?

Doesn't the link give you a hint?

I get paid to follow news. This means I find the (journalistic) sources. I don't do Twitter at all. And FB is for me just a messenger app + calendar of friends' birthdays.

Well Oakdale we ARE more democratic than you.

Yup, RJ, y'all sure are! 'Cept when you ain't... :) Listening to the play-by-play on the radio, which cut to network coverage at 6pm. The last I heard was an ABC reporter/analyst saying "the Biden landslide" predictions were, ahem, "overly optimistic."
It'll take a few days to settle in, I suspect. But I doubt it'll be anything like the 2000 fiasco! And -on a bright note- worries of rioting seem to have been unfounded.

I think musing back on the disharmony between the two contestants back in 2000 I recall well this one will be worse.  Sadly it is very much closer and if Trump out then the replacement will have a senate giving problems. Whatever faults Trump has and he was not a routine politician, I suspect that Biden will be a groan. Good that we have a wider political basis but it's what you get for dumping tea.............. :)

LOCK HIM UP on January 21, 2021!

Trump: So predictable, so tragic.

He is not a routine politician so not a help?

By the "logic" you used in another thread (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2472.msg84968#msg84968), jax, Xi's handling of the Wuhan outbreak (forbidding travel to other parts of China, but not international outbound travel...) is responsible for over a million deaths...
Oh well: We choose our "tyrants" accordingly. Predictably sad, no? :)

We obviously have different definitions of tragedy.

By the "logic" you used in another thread (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2472.msg84968#msg84968), jax, Xi's handling of the Wuhan outbreak (forbidding travel to other parts of China, but not international outbound travel...) is responsible for over a million deaths...

That claim is widespread in Trump circles, but that does not make it any more true. Policies in China were and are on a provincial and county level, much like the rest of the world. So when the Wuhan airport closed, January 23 according to memory, the other airports stayed open, and they closed piecemeal, depending on the province they were in. But when they closed, they closed domestic and international flights.

Those of us who actually paid attention in December, January, February (ahem) could follow the obstacle course of foreigners trying to return home to their respective countries before the plague arrived. Flights cancelled, prices soaring, and how to get from the city you were in to the airport in time, which (provincial borders were closed and which were open at a given time. The big problem, and panic, was how to get out of China, to third country if need be. In a few weeks, with all airports closed, special evacuation flights were all that were left. Those who didn't get on them were stuck (but a few weeks after that the tide turned, and China was safer than the outside world). 

Was the Chinese response good? Absolutely not. Trying to control the narrative and contain the epidemic on the hush for about two weeks at exactly the wrong place (Wuhan is the land transportation nexus of China) at exactly the wrong time (just before Spring Festival) was a horrible and deadly blunder. The system is partially to blame, local government is partially to blame, but Xi personally is definitely to blame. 

But keep in mind what we are talking about, a weeks-long delay for an unknown pneumonic disease that could be SARS-like. Now, nearly a year after, when this is no longer a "novel" disease, Trump is still spreading misinformation and sabotaging efficient response. Mind you, this is no MAGA invention. We see the exact same behaviour in earlier pandemics, e.g. the Spanish flu, or in some other countries. 

As it happen, the failing initial Chinese response might have been fortuitous for the rest of the world. If the Chinese had followed the proper "gold standard" script we might ironically have been worse off. Instead they went almost overnight from "wut, me worry?" to full lockdown in Wuhan and successively most of the country. A typical underreact-overreact pattern. But the overreaction, apart from mostly stopping the pandemic in China, gave another early warning to take this seriously. Most importantly, we didn't know until March that asymptomatic and presymptomatic people could spread this disease. The disease would probably have spread by stealth for weeks or months if they had gone by the book. Which seems to be how it spread in Europe and North America. Eyes on the border, we didn't really notice that it was spreading within, until it was too late. 

So, which Xi is responsible for thousands, likely tens of thousands of Chinese deaths, primarily in Wuhan/Hubei, he might have on the whole saved hundreds of thousands of lives world-wide. I am not going to credit him for that. It wasn't intentional. They really wanted to stop the disease, and they certainly didn't want it outside their borders, and overreacting happened to be the right medicine. But other places, like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, showed that you could suppress the disease without overreaction. 

You talked nonsense OakdaleFTL hen I mentioned we were more democratic than you and you came up with nonsense of course! Our parties elect leaders in their parties by " nonsense. In 2010 we had a joint government between the Conservative and the Liberal Democrats. Your upper house includes a 60% rate of millionaires. We have a welfare state and national health service and tens of millions of Yanks left groundless. Neither candidates in the Presidential show are to my mind the right person to be in the White House so I have two groans - Trump and Biden.

On a broader level the tens of millions o food stamps, millions in jail massive numbers homeless and so on does not make a damn who is in power,

*chuckles*

Outgoing US President Donald Trump became the subject of ridicule on Saturday after the location for the big press conference that he had called at the Four Seasons in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania turned out to be in a parking lot between a crematorium and an adult book store.

Rudy Giuliani couldn't cause more trouble and embarrassment to the Trump administration if he was secretly paid by the Democratic National Committee.

Maybe one day some form of normality might creep into nutjobland. So many over there are like children the way they act yet meant to be adults. Dare say that the new President will make some changes but the big sadnesses will continue. Such an immature attitudes on the streets but traditionally what they called a "party conference." A pity there is a national immaturity.

Well, jax, I see you are willing to be "reasonable" with regards to Xi (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2720.msg85015#msg85015)! But not Trump... :)

Let's just say that it is lucky Trump wasn't president of China when the epidemic started. On the other hand you Americans voted out Trump, the Chinese cannot do that. Overall a win for the US.

Yes ti that but America cannot vote out immature politicking.

you Americans voted out Trump

Premature jubilation, jax. (see here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2472.msg85052#msg85052))

In China Trump would have succeeded, in a democracy he won't.

We shall see... But there's always 2024! And Trump's effect upon the Republican Party will not likely wane; specially after four years of Biden/Harris, he'll seem a breath of fresh air -- tweets and all! :)
(I thought it was cute, that Xi accepted the proclamations of the news outlets...as final. Perhaps he doesn't understand that the media here can't be jailed for not toeing the party line?)

That a treasonous nepotist dictator-worshipping compulsive liar is considered a breath of fresh air is evidence for that the country is in irrecoverable moral decline. Unfortunately USA is very powerful and its departure from the world arena will be long and painful, likely lasting over a century.

Your vote-counting takes stupidly long. And you say it's not over as long as the sore loser is kicking and screaming? Oh dear.

Someone should scream at him You're fired!! just the way he enjoys to do to others.
What an imbecile.

And you say it's not over as long as the sore loser is kicking and screaming? Oh dear.

That is not quite accurate: It's not over until the electors are certified by their respective states and their votes are accepted by the U.S. House of Representatives.
I take it, ersi, you think the media should pick our president? Or that the popular vote should replace the Electoral College? (Perhaps on the model of American Idol? :) ) If so, you mistake the purpose of the election...

An electoral college is not needed and ex-colonists unfortunately cannot have me in the White House.

It's not over until the electors are certified by their respective states and their votes are accepted by the U.S. House of Representatives.

And it's taking so long because you don't know how to count votes.

I take it, ersi, you think the media should pick our president? Or that the popular vote should replace the Electoral College? (Perhaps on the model of American Idol? :) ) If so, you mistake the purpose of the election...

Nah, simply learn to count votes so that it's done promptly and nobody, such as the sitting president, would go crazy over insecurity whether he is still in the office or not. But I know, it cannot be helped anymore.

I hope Trump holds on to the bitter end. There's no reason to assume formalities change what we already know... And I'd love to see Trump get harshly evicted from the White House.

I hope Trump holds on to the bitter end. There's no reason to assume formalities change what we already know... And I'd love to see Trump get harshly evicted from the White House.

He’d finally get the highest rated show of all time that he has dreamed of all of his life.

Hey, Colonel, hasn't Missisippi seceded (https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article247151964.html) due to Biden win? Did you take the Panhandle along?

That’s when you chimed in. “We need to succeed (sic) from the union and form our own country,” you said.

Bless his heart.

The Times tweeted on Election Day: “The role of declaring the winner of a presidential election in the U.S. falls to the news media. The broadcast networks and cable news outlets have vowed to be prudent. Here’s how it will work.” After a tidal wave of ridicule from those who couldn’t find the constitutional provision for journalists deciding who won the election, the Times deleted its tweet and posted a weaselly correction: “We’ve deleted an earlier tweet that referred imprecisely to the role of the news media in the U.S. presidential election.”

“Imprecisely.” Yeah, that’s it.
(PJ Media (https://pjmedia.com/election/robert-spencer/2020/11/11/now-we-know-why-the-new-york-times-said-the-media-declared-the-election-winner-n1139002))

People say dumb things, even in print... :) But some of them really mean it!

Hey, Colonel, hasn't Missisippi seceded (https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article247151964.html) due to Biden win? Did you take the Panhandle along?

“Succeed” was the term the nazi in question used. Lol

Then, you have the Governor doing his best impression of Hitler:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wlbt.com/2020/11/16/miss-gov-calls-m-protect-children-far-left-socialist-teachings/%3FoutputType%3Damp

Does not make a lot of real difference who runs the White House because there are armies of Americans getting nowhere and being permanently a big number of sufferers.  :irked:

@Colonel Rebel Looks like an awesome governor and a fantastic state. Once the pandemic is over, I may give it a visit on my way to Louisiana, which I heard is a never-before-seen swamp and dump.

@Colonel Rebel Looks like an awesome governor and a fantastic state. Once the pandemic is over, I may give it a visit on my way to Louisiana, which I heard is a never-before-seen swamp and dump.

Let me know if you are traveling through Oxford and I’ll buy you a beer/coffee. :cheers:

New Orleans is nice, Baton Rouge is ok, both for Louisiana. Oxford is quite nice, as are a few places in this state.

The ppl of both are just bound and determined that whom ever slaps ppl upside the head with the Bible enough must be right, and Reeves posts about it or speaks about it with every breath, so...

Visited the ex-colonies twice some years ago.

...It might have changed some...

Update: I'm listening to Giuliani's press conference (on the radio)... My take: The remedy he appears to be asking isn't available -- not in the venue where he's pleading! So, I'll offer my congratulations to President-elect Biden. Trump and his legal team, by not taking this to court, have conceded...

The "court of public opinion" is another matter! But most of us remember OJ Simpson's case.

Maybe not changed for the positive since then Oakdale!

Maybe not changed for the positive since then

In some ways...

Referring to Bahrain's and UAE's normalization of relations with Israel, a New York Times writer, Isabel Kershner, writes "The normalization deals were struck during the waning days of the Trump administration to notch final foreign policy achievements just before the Nov. 3 U.S. election." I can't remember the last time I read a Times story that didn't editorialize its content; specially not when Trump was concerned. Or Israel: Some people still refer to the paper as the Duranty Times...with good reason!
(You might enjoy a new movie coming out after Christmas, Mr. Jones (https://www.cato.org/blog/mr-jones).)

The problem with Giuliani's contentious list of offenses isn't that he's wrong. It's that our system has no way to do anything other than prevent such abuses from happening again. (Even that might not happen.)
The situation is not clear-cut like the 2000 election, where Florida's Supreme Court attempted to change election law to favor Al Gore over George W. Bush... The U.S. Supreme Court had an appropriate remedy there: Stop the extra-legal re-counts and have the winner certified. (A lot of people seem to forget that Gore didn't concede until Dec.13!) This time a finer point of "unequal treatment" underlies the fraud.

Trump and his legal team, by not taking this to court, have conceded...

The "court of public opinion" is another matter! But most of us remember OJ Simpson's case.

It's because there was nothing to take to court.

Instead of stupid arguments like the "court of public opinion" or "do you think the media should pick the president?", just remember how last elections went. Last elections would have been much more justifiably contested.

Trump, true to his character, is bluffing without any substance. Only his fans do not know his character.

It is easy ersi to fool Americans and their wonky system illustrates that well.

It's because there was nothing to take to court.

Gee... What is it called, when prejudice overcomes reason? :)

Yes, probably something like this. Team Trump is all prejudice, no reason.

According to Trump's spiritual advisor, victory will arrive by angelic reinforcement.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R8hPhDfv18[/video]

A preacher preaches...and that excuses your presumption?! Same concocted delusion, different flavor... :)

The charismatic movement is odd, indeed! But there's never been a shortage of "crazy" in religious circles. (Consider Black Liberation Theology!) Is ad hominem all you got?

My mention of the "court of public opinion" was not an argument, but commentary:
Most people believe Simpson was guilty...
Many believe Gore won the 2000 election...
Many believe Hillary won the 2016 election...
Stacy Abrams believes she won Georgia's gubernatorial election last go-round...
Many will believe Trump won the 2020 election...

Stoppering your ears may prevent you from hearing, but is that rational? Patience is a virtue and despair is a sin. (I suppose you refute that, in similar fashion.) Both the relevant courts and public opinion will have their say. And -in good time- the truth will out, no? :)

A preacher preaches...and that excuses your presumption?! Same concocted delusion, different flavor... :)

...Is ad hominem all you got?

Are you denying that she is a White House aide, spiritual advisor to Donald Trump? Or are you saying something like "Never mind that she is among the top representatives of Team Trump, it's ad hominem because her position is irrelevant when talking about patterns of behaviour in Team Trump!" Geez.

My mention of the "court of public opinion" was not an argument, but commentary:

Overall, defective commentary, because

Most people believe Simpson was guilty...

Simpson was not a presidential candidate, and his stuff actually went through court. The court decided that he was "responsible" to the extent of all his wealth. He escaped prison only because of technicalities.

Many believe Gore won the 2000 election...

He won the popular vote, as did Hillary. Nobody competent is saying that the popular vote should guarantee you presidency in USA, but losing the popular vote in the given states by the margin that Trump lost it will lose the presidency so decisively that there is no rational reason to contest the results. Hillary conceded swiftly despite having won the popular vote. Trump is just a sore loser, worse than Hillary.

Many believe Hillary won the 2016 election...

She won the popular vote.

Stoppering your ears may prevent you from hearing, but is that rational?

You really don't care about rational. You only care about stoppering your ears.

---

For fun, shall we also review how Trump fulfilled his promises?
- Build a border wall against Mexico
- Make Mexico pay for it
- Jail crooked Hillary

What do you say, how did it go?

Are you denying that she is a White House aide, spiritual advisor to Donald Trump? Or are you saying something like "Never mind that she is among the top representatives of Team Trump, it's ad hominem because her position is irrelevant when talking about patterns of behaviour in Team Trump!" Geez.

You think she's Rasputin? Geez, indeed!
What policies do you think she promoted? She's a White House aide in the same way that Billy Graham was, for presidents of both parties... You'd take her odd behavior as evidence of Trump's unfitness for office?

Simpson was not a presidential candidate, and his stuff actually went through court. The court decided that he was "responsible" to the extent of all his wealth. He escaped prison only because of technicalities

I agree Simpson wasn't a presidential candidate... His "stuff" went through two different courts. Those "technicalities" you mention include a jury verdict after state prosecution. The civil action -as often happens- was punitive and based on a "well, gee, it looks like" standard. Much more like the court of popular opinion...

Trump is just a sore loser, worse than Hillary.

That may prove to be the case: We'll have to wait five years or more to find out, and Hillary will have to admit that she lost fair and square in the mean time... (If you believe she will, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you -- cheap! :) )

Nice use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BTW. ("Nobody competent is saying...")

I also like the promises you ignore... The Wall was, pre-Trump, a Democrat priority! Or did you forget? :)

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-22, 01:02:31

Are you denying that she is a White House aide, spiritual advisor to Donald Trump? Or are you saying something like "Never mind that she is among the top representatives of Team Trump, it's ad hominem because her position is irrelevant when talking about patterns of behaviour in Team Trump!" Geez.

You think she's Rasputin? Geez, indeed!
What policies do you think she promoted? She's a White House aide in the same way that Billy Graham was, for presidents of both parties... You'd take her odd behavior as evidence of Trump's unfitness for office?

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-22, 01:02:31

Simpson was not a presidential candidate, and his stuff actually went through court. The court decided that he was "responsible" to the extent of all his wealth. He escaped prison only because of technicalities

I agree Simpson wasn't a presidential candidate... His "stuff" went through two different courts. Those "technicalities" you mention include a jury verdict after state prosecution. The civil action -as often happens- was punitive and based on a "well, gee, it looks like" standard. Much more like the court of popular opinion...

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-22, 01:02:31

Trump is just a sore loser, worse than Hillary.

That may prove to be the case: We'll have to wait five years or more to find out, and Hillary will have to admit that she lost fair and square in the mean time... (If you believe she will, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you -- cheap! :) )

Nice use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BTW. ("Nobody competent is saying...")

I also like the promises you ignore... The Wall was, pre-Trump, a Democrat priority! Or did you forget? :)

   

Nice use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BTW. ("Nobody competent is saying...")

You seriously need to get a clue how informal fallacies work. Namely, the point - in this case whether the "Scotsman" is true or not - is either relevant to the issue or not. If relevant, then there is no fallacy.

In this case, the overwhelming majority of Americans are under the collective delusion that they are popularly electing the president. Since the actual procedure is that the Electoral College elects the president, the deluded Americans can be dismissed and there is no fallacy in dismissing them.

I also like the promises you ignore... The Wall was, pre-Trump, a Democrat priority! Or did you forget? :)

Another point that you fail to get: I am not on the side of the Democrats. Let them rot along with the Republicans. If both sides made the promises, then both sides have failed. Doesn't matter who made the promises first.

I am well aware that a hundred years ago KKK was a Democrat thing. Now it is a Repub thing. I guess you win :D

You seriously need to get a clue how informal fallacies work. Namely, the point - in this case whether the "Scotsman" is true or not - is either relevant to the issue or not. If relevant, then there is no fallacy.

In this case, the overwhelming majority of Americans are under the collective delusion that they are popularly electing the president. Since the actual procedure is that the Electoral College elects the president, the deluded Americans can be dismissed and there is no fallacy in dismissing them.

The popular vote -in each state- chooses the electors pledged to a candidate. (The state legislatures have the authority to approve the electors; the national legislature, the House of Representatives, has the authority to accept the states' electors...) In this case the Democrats have consistently complained that the winner in the Electoral College didn't win the nation-wide popular vote... So, you were actually saying that the Democrats are incompetent? :) Why didn't you just say so?!
I'd agree; but for different reasons.

I am well aware that a hundred years ago KKK was a Democrat thing. Now it is a Repub thing.

Ah! Another swerve (as RJ would call it...): Because BLM and other anti-American fascists promote racism for their own ends doesn't justify presuming Republican support for the KKK. The only reason Republicans are called racist is that they are not anti-American fascists... IOW, they support our constitution and its founding principles.
Which are anathema to such groups!
The Dems are more malleable... As long as they wield power, they'll say anything to appease the malcontents.

The successes of the Trump administration are exceptional! Hence, you (and the Dems) ignore them; or, worse, denigrate them...
But subsidiarity is still a crucial part of the system in the U.S., even if so-called progressive decry it. And the Trump administration has performed more in keeping with such than others have, in generations...

 
So, you were actually saying that the Democrats are incompetent? :)

The delusion that the people elect the president is an all-American thing, not restricted to Democrats or Republicans.

The successes of the Trump administration are exceptional! Hence, you (and the Dems) ignore them; or, worse, denigrate them...

I in fact named his "successes". You have not named one.

You were too incompetent to talk to already a number of posts back. Bless your heart.

The delusion that the people elect the president is an all-American thing, not restricted to Democrats or Republicans.

You of course refer to the media's mistaken impression. :) "Reliable sources," eh?

Your sarcasm is typical of many Europeans, ersi. Or is such generalization only permitted to you? :)

I in fact named his "successes".

Do tell: Where?

Lowering tax rates, specially corporate rates.
Rescinding unnecessary or over-reaching federal rule-makings.
Appointing federal judges who have traditional views on their role in our system.
Removing the U.S. from unwise and unconstitutionally assumed pacts, such as the Iran Nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Agreement...

I'm always skeptical of any argument that requires the first premise "In a perfect world..." Trump's gamesmanship in economic bargains is understandable. (He's not a doctrinaire conservative or libertarian.) It's a major factor in his populism. (I know the term's pejorative connotations, but I don't accept them as essential; you're familiar with the term "accidental," re: definition?)
Back when you were bitching and moaning about the structure and strictures of the EU you seemed to yearn for subsidiarity... What's changed? Oh: Bad Man Orange! You've caught a disease for which you will not accept a cure... :)

I look forward to your reactions to the Biden administration's actions.

You of course refer to the media's mistaken impression. :) "Reliable sources," eh?

My main sources are actual Americans such as yourself and SF plus a host more on online forums and IRC. Media only corroborates this picture. If it didn't, I would not refer to the media.

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-23, 21:03:27

I in fact named his "successes".

Do tell: Where?

Specifically his campaign promises just a few posts back. Those were at least extraordinary.

Lowering tax rates, specially corporate rates.
Rescinding unnecessary or over-reaching federal rule-makings.
Appointing federal judges who have traditional views on their role in our system.
Removing the U.S. from unwise and unconstitutionally assumed pacts, such as the Iran Nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Agreement...

A little while ago (this century, that is), W touted the same "successes", so there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about this. Raising and lowering taxes, revamping some federal rules, appointing judges, creating and undermining international pacts - this happens with each and every president.

So, first, none of this is extraordinary. And looking closer, none of these is a success of any degree. But there's no need to go into detail because you fail miserably enough already on the general level.

Back when you were bitching and moaning about the structure and strictures of the EU you seemed to yearn for subsidiarity... What's changed? Oh: Bad Man Orange! You've caught a disease for which you will not accept a cure... :)

No, my point is never subsidiarity for its own sake. EU unrealistically assumes it has principles, but it doesn't, so no particular principle can work when it comes to EU. My point is that if it is in the interests of EU to e.g. resist Russia's encroachment, then it is also in the interests of EU to pay attention to the interests of the member countries who live next door to Russia and who know Russia best. EU should not allow Putin to have German and French industrial interests on the hook.

But realistically, EU keeps showing it has no idea of common interest, particularly when it comes to geopolitics. Germany and France use their leverage to further their own specific economic interests over everybody else's existential rights, destroying any sense of the union, so this union must eventually fail, as proven by EU's consistent inability to deter abuses by both US and Russia, and inability to respond reasonably to accute crises that require a response, e.g. the Syrian and African refugees.

Thankfully EU is not a country, at least not in that sense. UK demonstrated it is possible to get out of it in peacetime. In a next actual crisis, everybody will have more determination to just ignore the directives from Brussels as appropriate and the thing will fall apart. It will be tough to depart from the euro currency, but it must be done when the government attached to the euro is a bone-headed idiot.

I look forward to your reactions to the Biden administration's actions.

I already know yours: The Biden administration may do some perfectly bipartisan things, but your holy banner will forever be blind partisanship.

No, my point is never subsidiarity for its own sake.

For its own sake? What bosh is that? It's for the sake of comportment with human nature

Specifically his campaign promises just a few posts back. Those were at least extraordinary.

Apparently you'd focus on his rhetoric regarding our control of our southern border... I'd agree it's important. You'd say no progress has been made; we'd disagree on that. But time will tell...
What else have you mentioned?

Your memory of W.'s successes is faulty. and your estimation of Biden's intentions (and abilities) is cartoonish. But cheer up! The Democrat party is poised for a revamping...

Thought you'd get a kick out of this:

(from the San Francisco Chronicle's LETTERS TO THE EDITOR section, Monday 20/11/23)
Denial of reality

  For the past four years, many of us have been trying to figure out just how firm a grip President Trump has on the Republicans in Congress. Over the past 10 days, we have found the answer the grip is sufficiently strong to turn all but a few of them into traitors.
  There is no other way to describe their refusal to recognize Joe Biden as the president-elect and to assist him by making a successful transfer of power than to call it treason.
  These Republicans are not only endangering our national security, but they are also contributing to tens of thousands of COVID-19 deaths that might have been prevented by proper coordination between the existing government agencies and the incoming administration.
  Sadly, many people who were elected to be our leaders have chosen instead to be members of a cult that denies reality and threatens to destroy our democracy.

(signed: Peter Hanauer, Berkeley)

Mind you, this is about three weeks before the Electoral College meets...

Quote from: ersi on 2020-11-23, 23:03:11

No, my point is never subsidiarity for its own sake.

For its own sake? What bosh is that? It's for the sake of comportment with human nature

For the sake of comportment with human nature? What the bosh is that? Of course, no elaboration will ever be forthcoming from you. You just stick to your unstated premises no matter how ludicrously flawed they are.

As to subsidiarity, you brought it up, not me. It was never among my premises or principles, stated or unstated.

You like playing with hidden cards. But from my perspective, as long as your cards are hidden, you are not even participating in the game.

...and your estimation of Biden's intentions (and abilities) is cartoonish. But cheer up! The Democrat party is poised for a revamping...

I think it's really Kamala Harris who will do the governing. Trump, with all his noise, was safely ignored for most intents and purposes. Biden will be much more easily ignored, because he won't be noisy.

I think it's really Kamala Harris who will do the governing.

I hope you're wrong: She was my state's Attorney General and then its junior Senator...
['Fraid you're gonna have to wait till tomorrow for more from me... :)]

Okay, so it's a little later than tomorrow... :) I had a wonderful Thanksgiving celebration, complete with three generations of my clan!

For ersi's benefit, I'll start with a link (https://www.takimag.com/article/the-failer-strategy-part-ii-sooper-sleuths-and-great-men/) to an article I just finished! (He's said he never reads articles I link to, because I should present enough of the text to let him think he's read it -- without the bother... :) ) For those who might be interested, the writer analyzes the reasons for Trump's loss of the election, and he does so without pulling any punches!

But I'd meant to give some reasons for why I and many others believe Harris will be horrible as president.

But for fun, some verse by Thomas Hood:

"No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease, No comfortable feel in any member. No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees, No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds, -- Novermber (https://allpoetry.com/poem/14329182-November-by-Thomas-Hood)!"

But I'd meant to give some reasons for why I and many others believe Harris will be horrible as president.

And then you do not do that. The same way as you have not given any reasons why Trump is so great, even though you adamantly believe he is, with faith in some "extraordinary achievements" that you are unable to name (the things you named were trivialities that every president does, and every president other than Trump does better).

And your links do not qualify as any sort of discussion. I in fact clicked your latest link just to confirm that I was 100% right in dismissing it. Yes, again I was 100% right and you did not deserve any benefit of the doubt.

Chico, California, was definitely not the reason for Trump's 2016 win nor his 2020 loss. Nor was it the reason for his totally failed administration. The reason is that his narcissism hit the right spot at the right time, but narcissism alone (which is all he's got) does not carry too far.

Think what you will of the following professor dude and his method, but he gets his predictions right. Learn some better political analysis than "it's because of Chico, California."

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_FX2maB3vw[/video]

you have not given any reasons why Trump is so great, even though you adamantly believe he is

As with your "reading" of the Chico, CA article, you've missed the point: I don't think Trump is great... I think he has altered our political landscape for the better, in terms that conservatives should appreciate.
Lichtman is a smart and engaging political historian. But his focus is on the horse race aspects of elections. What he touts (pun intended) is predictive efficacy of a system. Were I a gambler at the track, I'd certainly buy his tip sheet! But -to stay with the analogy- I'm more interested in the breeding and training of the animals... :)
Cole's exemplar aligns with my concerns. And with those of many in the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

Do note: The professor is aware that had it not been for the Corona virus Trump would have won handily... :)

---

This is too good not to pass on: I just heard Matt Gaetz on TV say, "Obama got the honeymoon. Donald Trump got the acrimonious divorce and the alimony payments. And Biden got the make-up sex..."
(Extra credit question: What was he talking about?)

As with your "reading" of the Chico, CA article, you've missed the point: I don't think Trump is great... I think he has altered our political landscape for the better, in terms that conservatives should appreciate.

That point is just a nuance, no real difference. In reality, Trump has caused so much damage, in ways that even conservatives recognise, that nobody can repair it. Of course, since politicians are corrupt in general, there will not even be any real willingness to repair the impunity of idiocracy, kleptocracy, nepotism, and treason that has become evident under Trump.

Do note: The professor is aware that had it not been for the Corona virus Trump would have won handily... :)

Not handily, but simply won, probably. Considering that we are talking about a dude who had just been struck with impeachment, what do you think it says about the American system?

That point is just a nuance, no real difference

That he's altered our political landscape for the better is just nuance? :) What would you call a "real difference"?

Considering that we are talking about a dude who had just been struck with impeachment, what do you think it says about the American system?

Impeachment is a political act... How many House Republicans voted for impeachment? How many House Democrats voted against? And, of course, what happened in the trial in the Senate?
The House majority filed charges, which didn't convince enough senators... Trump was not convicted (on either charge). Are you one of those, people who believe being charged is the same as being convicted? :)
What the impeachment of Trump says about the American system is that it works as it was designed to do: If the political majority wants the president removed, they impeach. If they convince the Senate their reasons are sound and proved -and deemed sufficient- the president is removed.
Surely you know all this?
What it said is that the Dems are terrified of losing power... But they're also incompetent. They couldn't even frame the guy!?

Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are who they are. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the mid-terms!

Not handily, but simply won, probably.

Ah! Nuance! :)

That he's altered our political landscape for the better is just nuance?

Can you give one example how he changed it for the better? Of course not. He changed it for the worse and I just listed how. So, your "point" has no nuance in it - it is a big fat obvious lie, the kind normal to a Trumpite.

The House majority filed charges, which didn't convince enough senators... Trump was not convicted (on either charge). Are you one of those, people who believe being charged is the same as being convicted?

As you say, impeachment is a political act. Therefore this is not about conviction at all. It is about being charged.

In politics, when you are charged seriously enough, you step down, guilty or not. Because when there is much pushback against you, policies cannot go through and cannot be effective, and everybody suffers when you are not popular. If you do not step down when you are unpopular and the scandal hits, you are just a bad politician making things worse.

Being a political act, impeachment does not prove whether you are guilty or not. Impeachment shows that there is serious pushback against you, that you have been hit with a scandal. Trump is guilty due to actual evidence against him, not for the impeachment which dealt on drastically reduced evidence.^[1] Impeachment is a political act and does not consider evidence. Particularly with the impeachment against Trump, all serious evidence was dropped for political reasons, because Republicans would have sabotaged the procedure fiercely. This was of course the wrong decision because the impeachment was plainly sabotaged anyway along purely partisan lines. It's the nature of political procedures.

Ah! Nuance!

The professor did not say "handily". Instead he said that both covid and the impeachment decided against Trump. Nothing to do with nuance.

In politics, when you are charged seriously enough, you step down, guilty or not.

I'd dispute the "seriously enough"... :) But the idea that one's popularity determines the length of one's term in office is part and parcel of parliamentary styles of government, which our framers rejected (wisely, I think). Impeachment is not equivalent to a vote-of-no-confidence; we don't have such in our system. (But you have no interest in our system!)

I'd also dispute the heavy toll you think unpopularity takes on a president's effectiveness. The Republicans seemed fair-well united. (Of course, the Democrats were too; but there weren't enough of them to get their way...^[1] It was a foregone conclusion that the Dems would try to thwart Trump at every turn. How'd that work out for them?
Note the down-ticket results. And, as I said, wait for the mid-terms!

BTW: Watch closely what happens when Biden/Harris have to deal with "divided" government... :)

Impeachment is not equivalent to a vote-of-no-confidence; we don't have such in our system. (But you have no interest in our system!)

I have had enough interest in your system to know it well enough to despise it with good reason. Impeachment is closest you have to a vote-of-no-confidence. What else do you liken it to? To a court verdict? What a joke!

"Despise"? Do you mean that literally or is that just a substitute for a pejorative?
Lichtman is an avowed Democrat. Him I understand. You are -- what? Would you care to assume some sort of understandable political label?

BTW: We like our little jokes! :)

I'm sure most people -here and elsewhere- will see this as Trump-related news:

Attorney General William Barr has appointed U.S. attorney John Durham as special counsel to secure his probe into the origins of the Russia investigation as president-elect Joe Biden prepares to take office.

The authority of the special counsel will make it more difficult for the incoming Biden administration to fire Durham, allowing the attorney to continue his work on the probe. The order appointing Durham special counsel is dated October 19; however, Barr wrote that the order should not be made public until after the general election, “because legitimate investigative and privacy concerns warrant confidentiality.”

“I decided the best thing to do would be to appoint them under the same regulation that covered [Robert] Mueller, to provide Durham and his team some assurance that they’d be able to complete their work regardless of the outcome of the election,” Barr told the Associated Press.

Durham’s investigation “is focused on the activities of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation within the FBI,” Barr said.

Crossfire Hurricane was the name given to the FBI’s investigation of possible collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives. The more than two-year probe yielded no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to disrupt the 2016 election.

As a result of Durham’s investigation, former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering an email that he used to apply for a FISA warrant against former Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page. Clinesmith was involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation from its early stages. In August 2016, the FBI agents who opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation gave Trump his first intelligence briefing, and Clinesmith approved a summary of that briefing along with former agent Peter Strzok.

(thanks to NR (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/barr-appoints-durham-as-special-counsel-to-continue-probe-under-biden/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-12-01&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart))

As much as I hate to do it, here's the Twitter-link to an Axios reporter's copies of Barr's order and his letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees...
https://twitter.com/alaynatreene/status/1333866897167806466?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1333866897167806466%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fnews%2Fbarr-appoints-durham-as-special-counsel-to-continue-probe-under-biden%2F

---

From another NR article:

Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday that the Justice Department has not found evidence of voter fraud widespread enough to change the outcome of this year’s presidential election, prompting a recrimination from the Trump campaign legal team, which claims the DOJ is unaware of the totality of the evidence they’ve gathered to substantiate their fraud allegations.

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Barr said in remarks to the Associated Press.

The statement from the attorney general comes after Barr suggested earlier this year that the high levels of mail ballots this year due to people opting to stay home during the pandemic could become a breeding ground for fraud.

Shortly after the election, Barr authorized federal prosecutors across the country to probe “substantial allegations” of potential voter fraud. However, the DOJ has not seen evidence of certain illegal voting irregularities the Trump campaign claimed occurred, the attorney general said.

“There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that,” Barr said, apparently referring to allegations from since-dismissed Trump lawyer Sidney Powell that election systems flipped votes from Trump to Biden.

“There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all, and people don’t like something they want the Department of Justice to come in and ‘investigate,’” Barr said.

The Trump campaign’s legal team responded to Barr’s update in a statement, saying “there hasn’t been any semblance of a Department of Justice investigation.”


“We have gathered ample evidence of illegal voting in at least six states, which they have not examined,” read the statement from Trump campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. “We have many witnesses swearing under oath they saw crimes being committed in connection with voter fraud. As far as we know, not a single one has been interviewed by the DOJ. The Justice Department also hasn’t audited any voting machines or used their subpoena powers to determine the truth.”

“Again, with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud,” the attorneys said.

Giuliani and Ellis vow to continue their “pursuit of the truth through the judicial system and state legislatures.”

Since Joe Biden eked out a victory in the election earlier this month, flipping several key battleground states Trump won in 2016 by razor-thin margins, the Trump campaign has launched a slew of more than 40 lawsuits challenging the vote results in six swing states.

Late last month, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from the Trump campaign that sought to invalidate millions of votes in Pennsylvania and block the certification of the state’s election results. The campaign subsequently lost its appeal of that decision.

In Michigan, the campaign dropped a federal suit last month that had sought to block the certification of ballots in deep blue Detroit. Republicans had claimed that GOP poll watchers were not allowed meaningful access to observe the ballot counting process in Detroit.

Even as late as Tuesday the campaign was still launching new challenges, filing a new lawsuit in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court alleging that abuse of absentee voting affected 220,000 ballots in the battleground state that President-elect Joe Biden won.

Trump has so far refused to concede the election to Biden and has claimed he won a second term “by a lot” even as his legal team fails to produce of voter fraud on a scale widespread enough to affect the outcome of the race and the former vice president’s victory.

(National Review (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/barr-doj-has-no-evidence-of-widespread-fraud-that-would-change-election-outcome/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-12-01&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart))

Interesting (...to me!) stuff!
Andy McCarthy concludes an article addressing the SC appointment with this:

If the new administration allows Durham to complete the investigation, it can be confident that the result will have integrity. Plus, Durham would be reporting to the attorney general Biden has appointed.

To the contrary, if Durham is shunted aside and the matter is abruptly dropped, half the country will assume this was done corruptly. If, as President-elect Biden maintains, he wants to unite the country, that would not be the way to do it.

(article (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/russia-probe-in-overtime-unpacking-barrs-latest-durham-appointment/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=first))

[/size]

Something for everybody! :)

"Despise"? Do you mean that literally or is that just a substitute for a pejorative?
Lichtman is an avowed Democrat. Him I understand. You are -- what? Would you care to assume some sort of understandable political label?

It's simple - I am not an American and don't care to be. You of course will not understand that.

And I will not understand blind partisanship. You have decidedly avoided to present some fact or evidence to your claims that Trump improved anything. You keep entirely to propaganda, which is weird when you are not professionally required to do it the way politicians or party officials are.

It's simple - I am not an American and don't care to be. You of course will not understand that.

You define your politics by claiming to be not an American, and your aspiration is to remain not an American? :) I hope you're not planning on emigrating! (Although under Biden/Harris, that might be enough to get you in...) As with Howie's, I don't understand such animosity.

And I will not understand blind partisanship.

Since you see it where it is not, your obstinacy is to be admired! (Do you likewise refuse to evil?)

You define your politics by claiming to be not an American, and your aspiration is to remain not an American?

Your lack of understanding is so total that there is apparently no use in explaining. But let's try anyway: I am an outsider. Therefore there is no "my politics" when it comes to America. I have the outsider's view, completely happy to be detached from any commitment to either party.

The fundamental flaw with the American system begins with that there are just two parties to choose from, which means there is no choice. So for me the pick is easy - dismiss the entire so-called system.

Since you see it where it is not, your obstinacy is to be admired!

Blind partisanship consists in factless and false assertions in favour of one party alone. You are full of it to the nth degree.

there is no "my politics" when it comes to America

I wasn't asking about your politics "when it comes to America"...

Quote from: ersi on 2020-12-02, 02:47:45

there is no "my politics" when it comes to America

I wasn't asking about your politics "when it comes to America"...

Maybe. But American politics, specifically of the Republican party, is the only politics you are able to grasp and talk about. Poorly.

Next time try to prove otherwise.

America Isn’t Finished Paying for Trump’s Incompetence

“I know how to fix it,” was a hollow claim four years ago and it remains so today, as Trump winds down his last month in office. It’s also unfortunate that two primo examples of Trump’s ineptitude landed with full force over the past week. They’re reminders of the devastating consequences of living with a president who has no interest in putting his shoulder to the wheel so he can capably manage the country’s affairs.

The first example — what increasingly looks to be a haphazard rollout and distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine to the American public — shouldn’t come as a complete surprise..... More than 310,000 Americans are dead, and Covid-19 continues to savage every state.

[...]

Several states that were promised shipments of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine said late last week that their orders had been substantially cut, prompting fears that Warp Speed won’t meet its delivery goals. The government said this was the result of states expediting their vaccine orders and Pfizer not having available supplies. But Pfizer pushed back against that narrative, saying it had vaccines sitting in warehouses awaiting shipment guidance.

Who might step in and settle these differences? The president. Is he doing that? No.

[...]

Which brings us to our second example: The massive, global Russian cyberattack on government agencies and corporations that began last spring but was uncovered and made public only over the past several days. What have we heard from Trump?

Moments like this, when national security is at risk because the computer networks we all rely on to communicate, transact and function have been penetrated and plundered, are when presidents prove their mettle. Presidents also have much more latitude to act independently and quickly when national security is at stake. But Trump has been AWOL, refusing to say anything about the cyberattacks apart from a pair of Saturday tweets defending Russia, blaming China and minimizing the severity of the hack.

Well, defending Russia and blaming China is at least consistent for Trump. But for intelligence agencies it is tomfoolery to let yet another campaign period be hacked by Russians.

Competence should be a basic requirement for the presidency, but Trump managed to hoodwink his supporters so effectively that they either still consider him competent or are indifferent. He has few concerns himself because he’s a man born into wealth and privilege who has never worked particularly hard or suffered the more brutal consequences of his own ineptitude and malfeasance. He remains in character, alas, right to the bitter end of his presidency.

Trump’s Longtime Banker at Deutsche Bank Resigns

The reasons for Ms. Vrablic’s abrupt resignation were not clear. Deutsche Bank in August opened an internal review into a 2013 real estate transaction between Ms. Vrablic and a company owned in part by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Mr. Trump and a client of Ms. Vrablic’s. Dominic Scalzi, a longtime colleague of Ms. Vrablic’s who played a role in that transaction, will also leave the bank.

Ms. Vrablic and Mr. Scalzi joined Deutsche Bank in 2006 from Bank of America. Ms. Vrablic quickly made a name for herself as one of her division’s leading rainmakers. In 2011, she landed a prominent new client: Mr. Trump, who for decades had been mostly off limits to the mainstream banking world because of his tendency to default on loans.

Congrats, Trump! You made history!

(https://images2.markets.businessinsider.com/5ff619426d61c10019cce01e?format=jpeg)

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify," Trump wrote. "USA demands the truth!"

Trump's tweet was censored by Twitter. A label was attached which said it, "can't be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence."

Word is that the Cabinet and Pence may invoke the 25th Amendment in a couple of hours.

What's the 25th Amendment? Plead insanity?

By the way, both Bill Kristol and Rachel Maddow demand another impeachment against Trump immediately. Who would ever have thought these two can agree?!

What's the 25th Amendment? Plead insanity?

By the way, both Bill Kristol and Rachel Maddow demand another impeachment against Trump immediately. Who would ever have thought these two can agree?!

Note Section 4 please: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xxv

Twitter is deleting Trump’s attempts to circumvent ban

Trump is currently deplatformed from most social media.

If Trump tries to use a non-government account (say, if he created a new account), it would be permanently suspended “at first detection” according to Twitter.

Later on Friday evening, Trump tested that policy by tweeting the same messages from @TeamTrump, the Trump campaign’s official account. The messages remained active for a few minutes before the account was suspended.

Trump's last extraordinary success in the office is managing to get another tweet out.

In the insta-famous Georgia call he said, "It's not social media. It's Trump media!"

Come back, Oakdale, to hail Trump's latest extraordinary achievements!

Schwarzenegger (currently a US Republican politician, if you did not know) compares the Capitol looting to Kristallnacht and says that Trump is a failed president.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_P-0I6sAck[/video]

Conan saves America.
Good we don't have him in the EU, he emigrated to the land of the Free, the home of the Brave.

Conan, in Howards telling, was a Cimmerian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians), and the real Cimmerians would geographically be Europeans. Not in the EU though.

Not in the EU though

Yes, they would be like the Swiss... or the Norwegians. Very much political correct this Cimmerian.

According to fake news:

Trump has been asking aides, friends and other associates whether they’d like a pardon. When one such person declined Trump’s offer for a pardon — explaining that they faced no charges, committed no crimes and therefore had no need for clemency — “Trump’s response was, ‘Yeah, well, but you never know. They’re going to come after us all. Maybe it’s not a bad idea. Just let me know,’ ” according to another senior administration official briefed on the conversation.

In other fake news, Rudy Giuliani offers Trump pardons for $2m (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons.html). However, Trump did not pardon himself before leaving office.

I seem to recall hearing Rudy Giuliani himself wasn't pardoned either.

The country is a joke on politics and democracy and I would remind that months ago before the nutty side of Republicans went daft at DC the Democrats had also went bonkers wrecking shops, looting and taking places over.

Trump was acquitted in the second impeachment too. This means that, in USA, the president can do absolutely anything whatsoever without consequences. Go Biden!

Rush Limbaugh died.

And Trump Plaza casino and hotel was demolished in Atlantic City.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK83Xcz8e9s[/video]

Now let the Republican Party disperse and a new party emerge left of the Democrats, the way it is in normal countries.

Now let the Republican Party disperse and a new party emerge left of the Democrats, the way it is in normal countries.

What? You don't think Kamala can carry us to Hell in her handbasket, in the time she'll have? :)

The Republican Party will re-form around the actual conservatives. (You know, those who believe in our founding principles and understand their oath to preserve and protect our constitution...) The Democrat Party will finally destroy itself... (Biden will, if he's still alive, say "Oops!" to which I'll remark: Good job, Joe!)

Did you notice, ersi, that the Dems opted for no witnesses for Trump's second impeachment trial? (Trump's lawyers threatened to put Nancy Perlosi under oath... :) )

The Republican Party will re-form around the actual conservatives. (You know, those who believe in our founding principles and understand their oath to preserve and protect our constitution...)

They have all turned into Trumpites. With Trump acquittal, they threw their alleged principles and constitution out of the window in the name of partisanship - for the second time. Trump led the mob to attack another branch of government - is there anything more clearly anti-constitutional than this?

There are no actual conservatives. You cannot name one.

Did you notice, ersi, that the Dems opted for no witnesses for Trump's second impeachment trial? (Trump's lawyers threatened to put Nancy Perlosi under oath... :) )

I noticed a lot more than that. Prior to Trump, Republicans had ceased to care about the constitution, law, and justice. Under Trump, they have given up any pretension of caring about plain facts too.

You've "drunk the Kool-Aid," ersi...

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is an expression used to refer to a person who believes in a possibly doomed or dangerous idea because of perceived potential high rewards.

Seems like you are not using the expression properly.

Facebook board upholds Trump ban

Four months after Facebook suspended Trump’s accounts for inciting violence that led to the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the company’s quasi-independent oversight board upheld the bans. But it told Facebook to specify how long they would last, saying that its “indefinite” ban on the former president was unreasonable.

[...]

The decision only “kicks the can down the road,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, who said it highlighted the need for greater government oversight of social platforms.

Trump's own response:

What Facebook, Twitter, and Google have done is a total disgrace and an embarrassment to our Country. Free Speech has been taken away from the President of the United States because the Radical Left Lunatics are afraid of the truth, but the truth will come out anyway, bigger and stronger than ever before. The People of our Country will not stand for it! These corrupt social media companies must pay a political price, and must never again be allowed to destroy and decimate our Electoral Process.

Any comment on what "the truth" is that Trump is referring to, Oakdale?

Seems like you are not using the expression properly.

Or Wikipedia is wrong and in modern parlance it simply means to completely believe in a certain narrative regardless of reasoning or evidence.

That being said, all I see is reasoning that follows from the evidence, unless we're talking about minor quibbles like that Mitt Romney is actually still a proper Republican.

Hand-waving is evidence, for some...
Romney is a part of the party that used to be called Rockefeller Republicans. He's fiercely non-committal about things like the constitution... As others before him have done, he's gone to the Senate -- where he can enjoy his retirement. :)

I'm often surprised at how many otherwise intelligent people think publication (of any sort) constitutes authoritative support for usage; lexicography is necessarily empirical. Its findings are not matters of proscription, except to inveterate quibblers.

Documentary evidence beats your waffle any day.

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/wQNpi6cBFJG55X0UpfCezQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MA--/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/e..ghSYuzNGdhNuJKsJshg--~B/aD00MjA7dz02MzA7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/deadline.com/bdd995a571820e363e1b6f2d3564b37f)

Tell me there's some sort of respect for the constitution in this picture. The picture speaks for itself: If you care for the constitution, stay away from Trump!

If it must be propaganda in any case, why would an otherwise intelligent person let himself be brainwashed by Trump of all people? An intelligent person would carefully choose his propaganda, wouldn't he? Well, maybe he wasn't intelligent in the first place!

Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term usually for criticism or negative reactions to former United States President Donald Trump that are perceived to be irrational, and have little regard towards Trump's actual policy positions, or actions undertaken by his administration.[2] The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of his actions, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world.[3][1][4] Journalists have used the term to call for restraint when judging Trump's statements and actions.[5][6][7] The term has also been used by political commentator John Avlon to describe Trump supporters who are unable to accept reality, such as Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.[8]

Tell me there's some sort of respect for the constitution in this picture.

Tell me why you think those pictured are representative of the Republican Party... Your reason(s) should explain a lot.

@jax: I presume when you spoke of "science denial" earlier you meant, primarily, the (perceived-to-be mostly Republican) Americans' opinions about AGW/climate change...
When science becomes so politicized, and takes on the trappings of religious fervor -- complete with dogma and excommunication, it's not really possible to have rational discourse about it; not without "psychologizing"! (It is, however, very informative to "follow the money"!)

Or did you mean something else?

Tell me why you think those pictured are representative of the Republican Party... Your reason(s) should explain a lot.

Your question explains a lot about you. You think that their party affiliation is a matter of opinion - and the opinion is wrong when it is not yours :)

But in fact, it is a matter of fact. An hour earlier the bunch had been listening and yelling along to the speeches of Trump, Giuliani, etc. near the White House. Are you saying that non-supporters had come to hear the speeches? Are you saying it was not the same bunch? There's live video of the events by the participants themselves from a thousand angles!

Nah, you are never in the mood for facts. 

Have you any idea how many Republicans there are? And how many were involved in the riotous antics of January 6h at the Capitol? Your "ability" to generalize is utterly amazing! If one discounts your prejudices, pure laziness remains the only explanation... But that's what happens when statistical reasoning is relegated to propaganda and advertising: The point of accurately describing reality is subsumed by the need to sell pre-conceived ideas.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said, "You're entitled to your opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts."

Have you any idea how many Republicans there are? And how many were involved in the riotous antics of January 6h at the Capitol?

You mean there are so few Republicans that the rioters could not possibly have been (all) Republicans? Nice one :up: :lol:

The question now is: Do *you* have any idea how many Republicans there are? Answer: 36 million. There are 28,000 members in the Republican Party in DC alone, but the rioters were of course from all over the country.

Another question: How many of those who are currently in jail or arrested for the riots were NOT listening to the Trump speeches and how many did NOT vote for him? Do you have any idea? Of course, you do not *want* to have any idea :lol:

The best you may mean here is that - there are 36 million Republicans, but only a tiny fraction stormed the Capitol :lol: Well, the answer to that one is: Yup, after they had just heard the speeches of their supreme leader and his closest circle, so they are a very very representative fraction!

Moreover, all along, the issue from my point is not the party affiliation, but Trumpism. You are an unmitigable Trumpite. And Trumpism and Republicanism currently go pretty much hand in hand these days, because Republican senators decided it was all fine and well to have let the president incite the riot on the Capitol, since it was the president of their own party.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said, "You're entitled to your opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts."

Yeah, this one is so ironic it is outright painful. Have you referred me to a single fact, like, ever once? Ah, I know, you have alternative facts that are so private that you will never spell them out :)

And how many were involved in the riotous antics of January 6h at the Capitol?

Involved is hardly the relevant metric. Iirc some 40-50% of Republicans were polled as approving of it, and only a small minority of 10-20% thought it was actually a threat to the country and the constitution.^[1]

The way it works in a country like Belgium or the Netherlands is the Trumpists have their (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Belang) own party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom). The equivalent of the Republican Party consists of three parties:^[2] conservatives, liberals, and something like hard eurosceptic anti-islam anti-immigration nationalists.

The conservatives and liberals aren't unaffected by the nationalists since they don't like to lose too many votes to them. They will copy some of their at best ineffective proposals that play on racist feelings. For example, maybe 20 to 15 years ago immigration was an issue, maybe it wasn't. But whatever the case, it's back then that it was made super restrictive. Campaigning on further restrictions as if we were still living in the '90s is idiotic, and somehow the other parties either don't manage or don't care to get across how it's pretty much already impossible to migrate here.

@jax: I presume when you spoke of "science denial" earlier you meant, primarily, the (perceived-to-be mostly Republican) Americans' opinions about AGW/climate change...
When science becomes so politicized, and takes on the trappings of religious fervor -- complete with dogma and excommunication, it's not really possible to have rational discourse about it; not without "psychologizing"! (It is, however, very informative to "follow the money"!)

Or did you mean something else?

There is nothing inherently reality-averse with right-wing or left-wing (or any other) politics. Of course, if reality and ideology don't match, you either have to sacrifice one or the other or the idea of consistency, which is part of reason that wingnuts tend to be nuttier. Most traditional crackpot theories, e.g. "Moon landings were fabricated by Kubrick", weren't that political. Even as late as the Opera forums in the naughties I talked about left-wing and right-wing theories. There were more of the latter, but there was a balance of sorts. 9/11 conspiracies went left and right, and anti-vaxxing used to be an ailment on the left. Happier days.

The Republican party promotes climate science denial as well as denial of other science. Unlike denying evolution this actually matters, and has harmed the US and the world, but my interest here is what damage it has done to the brain of the Republican party. You now have active QAnon proponents like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert in Congress, and except for a handful Republicans nobody speaks up against lunacy that would make the Kubrick moon landing down-to-earth in comparison.

The Republican party promotes climate science denial[emphasis added]

But nowhere near as much as the Democratic party promotes "religious" devotion to a still hotly debated scientific issue. What most Republicans promote is rational policies, instead of hysterical reaction to modeled but unrealized harms and "dangers".

[...] as well as denial of other science.

Examples...?

Unlike denying evolution this actually matters, and has harmed the US and the world,

In what way has the U.S. or anyone else been harmed?

[...] but my interest here is what damage it has done to the brain of the Republican party.

Anthropomorphize all you want, the Republican party is as reasonable an organization as any.

You now have active QAnon proponents like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert in Congress, and except for a handful [of] Republicans nobody speaks up against lunacy that would make the Kubrick moon landing down-to-earth in comparison.

The Dems have members who think Apollo 11 landed on Mars (or don't know the difference between the moon and Mars) and one who worried that American troops on Guam might cause the island to capsize...
You are aware that the parties don't dictate who gets enough votes to attain office, right? I'll cut the Dems some slack for their rather large number of elected buffoons, when their party allows dissent in its ranks. But -if you won't have stupid people in office- then neither democracy nor any other form of government is suitable. No? !)

The Dems have members who think Apollo 11 landed on Mars (or don't know the difference between the moon and Mars) and one who worried that American troops on Guam might cause the island to capsize...

It is of course absolutely stupid to not know the difference between moon and Mars and to think that an island might capsize, but there is a difference between stupid and evil.

Trump does not merely think that the elections were stolen from him. He also says so, he says so in public speeches to his supporters, and adds, "We're going to walk down [to the Capitol] and I'll be there with you..." (that's a quote, yes) and points the finger where the mob must go. That's evil, different from stupid. The issue is both evil and stupid, not simply stupid.

Why is it necessary to keep spelling out the topic for you? Why do you pretend that you never understand what this is all about? Well, maybe you are not pretending at all...

Edit: Not knowing the difference between moon and Mars does not threaten the constitution in any way. Inciting an attack against the other branch of government does. You have been trying to leave an impression that constitution is important to you, but you are getting less convincing with every post.

there is a difference between stupid and evil

I've noticed that: People you agree with can be stupid; people who don't agree with you are evil... :(

Are the Marxist BLM founders evil? Is Critical Race Theory just dumb...? (Can we talk about such here -I mean, in this thread? Of course we can: Your obsession with Trump is -- shall we say, amusing? :)

What? You now act offended that I brought out the *fact* that Trump is evil? Namely he posed a direct threat to the constitutional order and continues to do so as long as he keeps making speeches saying that the elections were stolen.

Look, dude, facts are not things that you can afford to disagree about. End of story. You come across as a hopeless hypocrite if you pretend you care about the constitution and at the same time think that Trump's attack against the Capitol did not even happen.

Are the Marxist BLM founders evil? Is Critical Race Theory just dumb...? (Can we talk about such here -I mean, in this thread? Of course we can...

Yes, of course we can, as soon as you demonstrate that a discussion can be had with you, i.e. that you know what you are talking about on some basic factual level. It is sincerely rather frustrating that Europeans know more about America than Americans do.

In what way has the U.S. or anyone else been harmed?

I realize that sidewalk cafés just reopened yesterday here in Belgium and that hospitalizations have been steadily dropping, again, here in Belgium, but I believe there are some 600,000 dead Americans and counting?

The American population that tried to invade the Capitol did what the still American President in functions, Mr Trump, defended or at least encouraged that they should do. They aren't guilty of anything.
It's obvious that who should had arrested President Trump accused of treason to the Constitution and the Nation it was the Army.

Look, dude, facts are not things that you can afford to disagree about.

When mere opinions are asserted as facts, of course we can "afford" to disagree about them!
Fact 1: Trump was impeached for the "Trump attack against the Capitol".
Fact 2: Trump was acquitted...
Fact 3: Biden is president, and who-knows-who is in charge.... (Maybe someone will start a thread? :)

as soon as you demonstrate that a discussion can be had with you

You mean, as soon as I accept your opinions as the starting point of conversation? I'm not averse to that; but I won't credit such as "fact" simply because you believe it; nor because "Golly-fee, look at how many never-Trumpers believe!"

Quote from: ersi on 2021-05-08, 23:03:30

Look, dude, facts are not things that you can afford to disagree about.

When mere opinions are asserted as facts, of course we can "afford" to disagree about them!
Fact 1: Trump was impeached for the "Trump attack against the Capitol".
Fact 2: Trump was acquitted...

Yeah, this is what happens when you assert mere opinions as facts. Trump was acquitted based on opinion, and it was a sharply divided opinion. Maybe somebody will teach you some day what the difference is between fact and opinion, before it's too late.

Meanwhile, the facts remain.

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/wQNpi6cBFJG55X0UpfCezQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MA--/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/e..ghSYuzNGdhNuJKsJshg--~B/aD00MjA7dz02MzA7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/deadline.com/bdd995a571820e363e1b6f2d3564b37f)

I won't credit such as "fact" simply because you believe it; nor because "Golly-fee, look at how many never-Trumpers believe!"

The problem with you is that you do not credit facts at all. So let's try mere opinion for a moment.

Everybody in this thread (except you) has indicated that they don't care about Trump because they care about law and order - and the events of January 6, among others, indicate that Trump does not care about law and order. You, on the other hand, are all-in for Trump, while maintaining that constitutional order is good, despite the events of January 6.

Can you explain yourself by other than "the attackers of the Capitol were not representative of the Republican Party"? What are some of the good characteristics of Trump that show he is the man of the constitution? There have to be many strong such characteristics, because this thread lists many that indicate the opposite, and you, being the reasonable person here, of course have a good reason for your opinion.

Try without tripe and nonsense for once.

Yeah, this is what happens when you assert mere opinions as facts. Trump was acquitted based on opinion, and it was a sharply divided opinion. Maybe somebody will teach you some day what the difference is between fact and opinion, before it's too late.

And what about that brilliant legal reasoning. "But judge, I murdered the guy last month!"

Prince Andrew used a lot of this as a defence in his interview with BBC. Question (approx), "In December 2010 Epstein threw a party to celebrate his release from prison and you were invited as a guest of honour." Answer, "In 2010? Certainly there wasn't a party in December! It was a small dinner, only eight or ten of us."

Trump was acquitted based on opinion

You mean the House managers didn't present evidence that swayed anyone... It was -I agree- a "show trial"; but the incompetence of the prosecutors (...and their fear of exposure -- of who?) preordained the outcome.
Much the same thing happened at Trump's first impeachment trial. (Collusion between investigators, witnesses and "journalists" made most testimony too damning to present to the Senate.)

You [...] are all-in for Trump

Keep your blinders on! I have no need to be for or against Trump: He's not running for office, and his off-the-cuff opinions don't matter to me.
But his shakeup of the powers that be was long overdue. And the Biden administration's antics will reinvigorate the movement Trump spearheaded.

You failed to answer any of the questions. Why do you hold to the opinion that Trump is anything good in any way? You failed miserably both on facts and on opinion. Discussion cannot be had with you. So, the following is not for you anymore.

Impeachment procedure is a joke in the American constitution. It has never once worked. Well, threat of impeachment worked against Nixon, surprisingly, but the procedure itself has never once yielded the result that the wise founding fathers imagined it would. The president's position is 100% unaccountable, if the president has full determination or no conscience or both.

Why do you hold to the opinion that Trump is anything good in any way?

Because I'm not an ideologue.
What in his record as president you probably find reprehensible I find commendable. That perhaps explains why you need such vitriolic terms...for Trump, and for me.

BTW: What nation do you think has a non-joke government? :)

p.s.,
Would you do the honors, creating a Biden thread?

A character judgement, such as what we are passing on Trump here, should be based on a collection of behavioural facts. You are missing many important facts. Despite the pictures, videos, reporting and investigations around the events of January 6th, you have not noticed Trump directing a mob assault on the Capitol. This is a very huge fact to miss. So your judgement is not based on facts, unfortunately.

The next best option is ideology, i.e. you'd cherry-pick the facts that support your agenda and hush down other facts. But here you are claiming that you are not an ideologue. And I'd agree. An ideology would require some sense of principle, but you lack that.

So the last option is that you are simply uttering words without any meaning, even without a pretension to any meaning. Coherence is not a thing for you.

Would you do the honors, creating a Biden thread?

Would your contribution magically turn meaningful in that thread?

The next best option is ideology, i.e. you'd cherry-pick the facts that support your agenda and hush down other facts. But here you are claiming that you are not an ideologue. And I'd agree. An ideology would require some sense of principle, but you lack that.

I get the impression that there is a consistent ideology, which is only seemingly incoherent. Namely, as long as it somehow annoys "the Dems," it's good. Doesn't matter what it is.

Incidentally, while it's been rather obvious for quite a while now, the Trump Party has now made it official:

US Republicans have voted to oust a top lawmaker, Liz Cheney, from her leadership post over her criticism of former President Donald Trump.

The Wyoming lawmaker, daughter of ex-US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has held the third-ranking post in the House of Representatives since 2019.

On Tuesday she said her party could not stand for truth if it upheld Mr Trump's false claims he won the 2020 election.

House Republicans will probably replace her this month with a Trump loyalist.

The move is seen as a sign Mr Trump's grip on the party is stronger than ever six months after he lost the election.

Liz Cheney, like Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger is apparently one of those remaining real Republicans - that is, someone you can respectfully agree or disagree with who doesn't bullshit about with "alternative facts" because they don't like the potential political implications of the actual facts.

I agree that anti-Dem-everything seems to be the essence of it, but this only qualifies at best as an anti-ideology, insofar as the Dems can be said to have an ideology. Otherwise it's just reactionary fumbling with no purpose in itself. They are easily self-contradictory: touting constitution and rule of law, warning of one-party rule and authoritarianism while also promoting the one whose autocracy was clear from the beginning all the way long past his election loss, bewailing the so-called cancel culture while cancelling heretics among themselves for the stupidest of reasons, etc. There is no healthy bone left in that party.

And, Oakdale, so that you don't get me wrong: I would have gladly seen Trump continue for another term and even more. It's because I do not wish well to USA at all. Trump was very effectively destroying the country, its reputation worldwide is in shambles, it was close to being locked out of global politics and economics, and I would have wanted to see that trend brought to completion and the country to implode, really. Unfortunately Biden is reconstructing everything rather swiftly.

Absolutely, to the first paragraph anyway. I wish the US well.

Incidentally, this video displays the difference between a real Republican (Andrew Neil) and an SJW cancel culture supporting virtue signaling white knight (Ben Shapiro).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

A character judgement, such as what we are passing on Trump here [...]

is mostly beside the point, when it comes to politics and statecraft.

I do not wish well to USA at all

Quite telling, ersi.

Trump was very effectively destroying the country, its reputation worldwide is in shambles, it was close to being locked out of global politics and economics

Stock markets up to unprecedented heights, unemployment down to decades-low rates, the economy's growth rate steadily rising; non-activist judges and justices seated, border security bolstered, trade pacts renegotiated, energy sector booming... Yup, that's destruction, all right! (And that silly idea that Congress approve treaties? How dare he propose it? :) Our "reputation" after Obama/Biden/Clinton/Kerry was one of appeasement and ineffectiveness; clearly, that's what many of the world's "leaders" preferred... Oh, well.
"Global politics"? You mean appeasing Iran and China and Russia? No thanks, as long as their goals include abusing the United States...and its allies.

And yet thanks to Trump Iran has resumed its nuclear weapons program. China and Russia were salivating at the thought of more Trump.

Biden's pretty much already achieved more than Obama and Trump put together. He's even occasionally managed to make us look bad, for example with the vaccine patents, which I happen to find quite exciting. Our position as the leading power in the world was a given under Trump.

Quote from: ersi on 2021-05-13, 00:27:25

A character judgement, such as what we are passing on Trump here [...]

is mostly beside the point, when it comes to politics and statecraft.

False. Particularly in case of regimes of such autocratic potential as in USA, where you basically have a monarch in place whose only limit is the term limit, it matters at least somewhat whether the people like the ruler or not. If not for any other reason, it is important to assess how well the ruler is doing on populism. To settle the point how important character judgements are, it's a battle of source authorities in the area of politology. But you don't do such sources, so...

Stock markets up to unprecedented heights,

As you (don't) know, stock markets are mostly beside the point, when it comes to economy, certainly the kind of economy you should care about - middle class and the majority of the population. Got any dividends or return on your investments lately? Ever? Right, that's what I am saying.

unemployment down to decades-low rates,

Sure, if data does not matter to you. But let's take a look at the past 25 years below. 2008 was the global financial crisis that was started in/by USA. The 2020 spike is the covid. Between those years was a slow recovery from the global financial crisis, definitely not any particular merit of Trump's.

(https://imgur.com/mK4BpZL.png)

the economy's growth rate steadily rising;

Yep, data does not matter to you and you think economy is the stock market. Sad!

non-activist judges and justices seated,

So-called non-activists seated by rather deliberate procedural activism.

On the campaign trail and at White House events, Trump would often cite his record on judicial appointments as an example of accomplishment, while ignoring the obstructions that occurred during the Obama years.

“You know, when I got in, we had over 100 federal judges that weren’t appointed,” he said. “Now, I don’t know why Obama left that. It was like a big, beautiful present to all of us. Why the hell did he leave that? Maybe he got complacent.” Trump omitted the essential fact that McConnell had blocked Obama’s nominees.

The high court vacancy at the start of Trump’s term was, in essence, a gift from McConnell.

Ultimately Trump ended up fulminating against his own appointees on Twitter and in speeches because they did not rig the elections for him and thus failed to display what was really expected of them - loyalty and obedience.

border security bolstered,

Ah yes, the "beautiful" wall that partly was already there (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/06/03/01/4CDBBB2700000578-0-image-a-40_1527984945907.jpg) and part of what Trump built was blown over by wind (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51307868). Now, it is of course fully commendable for a president to (try to) fulfil his promises. However, it was a meaningless promise to begin with. Borders simply need disciplined borderguards in order to leak less. For example, see the border between Russia and Finland which markes one of the world's sharpest standard-of-living divides - no wall, but no leaks either. Borderguards do the job.

trade pacts renegotiated,

Meaning pacts cancelled and replaced with either nothing or with worse ones - worse for the USA, specifically, which is fine by me. Initiating trade wars out of the blue for no reason and trying but failing to negotiate obnoxiously asymmetric deals with countries and blocs has rather effectively damaged the reputation of the USA on the world arena. It would have been better for everyone (else than USA) to have had a bit more of it - it was good for the world consensus.

energy sector booming...

As exemplified by the blackout in Texas? Yes, the industry made a profit on it (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/results-tally-up-billions-profit-texas-freeze-gas-power-sellers-2021-05-06/) so it's all good, right?

(And that silly idea that Congress approve treaties? How dare he propose it? :)

Name one treaty that was *not* approved by Congress, but that the USA is otherwise committed to. One will be enough to make your point. Yup, thought so.

Our "reputation" after Obama/Biden/Clinton/Kerry was one of appeasement and ineffectiveness; clearly, that's what many of the world's "leaders" preferred... Oh, well.

USA has always been bulldozing, never appeasing. During Trump, the bulldozing policy was replaced with even cockier sweeping bully attitude against everyone, failure to acknowledge existing alliances, cancelling earlier deals, disrupting relations left and right, and then failing to get any improvement (of trade balance, of diplomatic relations, anything).

"Global politics"? You mean appeasing Iran and China and Russia? No thanks, as long as their goals include abusing the United States...and its allies.

By global politics I mean the positions and trending policies of country blocs and international organisations. You of course put it in scare quotes, indicating that you do not know what global politics is. You only know US foreign relations with specific countries.

Anyway, what did Trump achieve wrt Iran, China, and Russia? Wrt Russia, he has a well-documented track record of being a pathetic Putin-worshipper. Wrt China, he replaced the workable trade deal with the current supply shortage whose expenses keep accruing swiftly on USA. Plus completely random ad-hoc tariffs and sanctions.

Wrt Iran, international community needs to find a fix to the damage caused by cancelling the nuclear deal that Iran had been following. Trump even started an outright war with Iran, but it remained very short because Iranians unluckily shot down a passenger airplane by mistake and therefore had to swiftly de-escalate the situation. Otherwise they seemed fully ready to wage war. Want a war with Iran? You lost even against Afghanistan, as recently acknowledged, so...

In summary, if Trump did so well on all these policies, why is he polling historically badly (https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-Gallup-Historical-Statistics-Trends.aspx)? I would say he did badly on all his policies, which can somewhat explain the polls.

---

Even though all your facts are obviously false or "alternative", strictly as per Trumpite talking points, it's nice that you brought facts up for a change. Without facts, there would be nothing to respond to in your posts.

As exemplified by the blackout in Texas? Yes, the industry made a profit on it (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/results-tally-up-billions-profit-texas-freeze-gas-power-sellers-2021-05-06/) so it's all good, right?

I was definitely tempted to comment about unreliability booming. It seems like such an odd thing to bring up. There isn't even an ineffective token effort like with the occasional negative remark about Iran or that border wall.

Edit: on second thought, the Trump administration came out with something against renewable energy on public lands because wind turbines cause cancer.^[1]

Stock markets up to unprecedented heights, unemployment down to decades-low rates, the economy's growth rate steadily rising; non-activist judges and justices seated, border security bolstered, trade pacts renegotiated, energy sector booming... Yup, that's destruction, all right! (And that silly idea that Congress approve treaties? How dare he propose it?  :)  Our "reputation" after Obama/Biden/Clinton/Kerry was one of appeasement and ineffectiveness; clearly, that's what many of the world's "leaders" preferred... Oh, well.
"Global politics"? You mean appeasing Iran and China and Russia? No thanks, as long as their goals include abusing the United States...and its allies.

Of course, the stock market has been largely divorced from the larger economy for decades and is prone to irrational exuberance and its opposite. Pre-Covid, the Trump economy was a myth. Average GDP growth was only up by .1%, while wage and job growth slowed. Of course, the deficit exploded. The "records" were a consequence of a long expansion and nothing the former assclown actually did. Trump's supressing scientific data about Covid, at times outright denying it, mocking mask wearing, peddling false cures (HCQ), etc left this country in ruins. Another four years of this jackassery would have left America a 3rd world country.

Welcome back. ;)

First felony defendant sentenced in Capitol riot, gets eight months in prison

A federal judge on Monday handed down an eight-month prison term to the first person sentenced for a felony in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, after an hours-long hearing that included arguments over whether the sentence would further divide the country, deter future attacks against the government or lead hundreds of others charged to plead guilty or face trial.

[...]

Hodgkins expressed remorse and regret for his actions, any damage they caused “and the way the country I love has been hurt.” He said he understood that even the presence of participants who, like him, remained peaceful “may have helped embolden others to carry out the destruction that occurred.”

“I do not and will not make any excuse, nor will I place any blame on any politician, journalist or otherwise,” Hodgkins said, saying he put “passion ahead of principle.” He added, “I completely acknowledge and respect that Joseph R. Biden is the rightful and respectful president of the United States.”

U.S. prosecutors sought an 18-month prison term for Hodgkins, citing the need to deter domestic terrorism. Hodgkins asked for probation or house arrest.

Hmm, an honest criminal?

Meanwhile, Richard Barnett, the famous occupant of Nancy Pelosi's desk, is under restrictions awaiting sentence.

- Home detention
- Location monitoring
- No possession firearms or other weapons
- Passport revoked and can’t get a new one
- No travel outside of 50 miles from his home in Gravette
- No associating with anyone from the Jan. 6 insurrection

According to some ppl, Trump will be reinstated today at this event https://events.donaldjtrump.com/events/rally-in-cullman-alabama
According to Google Maps, the address looks like a non-place https://goo.gl/maps/JrJJxQFCBx5LJLwH8

Why is Trump still the leader of the Republican Party? Are Republicans really that thick? (Yes, they are.)

According to Google Maps, the address looks like a non-place https://goo.gl/maps/JrJJxQFCBx5LJLwH8 (https://goo.gl/maps/JrJJxQFCBx5LJLwH8)

Do they have something against two-story dwellings?

They have something against basements also.

Sydney Powell and her co-nutheads get legally devastated in Michigan as their election's fraud lawsuit is judged utterly frivolous. The writer of the decision probably giggled a lot when writing it, but it is rather painful to hear how empty a lawcase in USA can be.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb690RDrCeU[/video]

FYI: A prediction from this humble but un-cowed American republican has it that Eric Trump (...not The Donald or Junior) will run in '24. We'll have to wait and see...?!
Yeah, we will: Interesting times!

(Remember, you heard it here first! :)

I also think that a Trump will run, but it is going to be a very short run, either utterly embarrassing or utterly forgettable. He won't get half as far as Larry Elder, not even a quarter.

Any chance the mods can lock this thread until he gets his Twitter back? 😶

Any chance the mods can lock this thread until he gets his Twitter back? 😶

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

FYI: A prediction from this humble but un-cowed American republican has it that Eric Trump (...not The Donald or Junior) will run in '24. We'll have to wait and see...?!
Yeah, we will: Interesting times!

(Remember, you heard it here first! :)

Perhaps, but I think Don Jr is more likely.  People are already talking about Trump 2024, but to me, there's no saying that Biden or Trump will even be alive in 2024. Talking natural causes of course.

Any chance the mods can lock this thread until he gets his Twitter back? 😶

Does he still want it, considering he's starting his own social media. Of course, that platform is already looking more censored than Twitter since criticism of Trump is not going to be allowed on it.

Perhaps, but I think Don Jr is more likely.  People are already talking about Trump 2024, but to me, there's no saying that Biden or Trump will even be alive in 2024. Talking natural causes of course.

Chances of being alive are decent enough. Chances of wanting to, on the other hand…

Trump about to launch a competitor to Twitter and fake news:

It will be months before the new venture publicly releases its first product, a social-media platform called Truth Social. And there are already technical issues. On Thursday, the Truth Social page was hacked to make it appear that Trump shared a photo of a defecating pig.

It’s also unclear how Trump plans to build a social-media platform on the scale of Twitter over the next few months, let alone a streaming service, which is the next phase of Trump Media’s plans, according to the press release announcing the company. That statement was light on numbers even by SPAC standards.

“We have no financials. We have no business plan. We don’t know how they got to the valuation. We have no information,” said Kristi Marvin, chief executive of research firm SPAC Insider. “That’s the fundamental problem.”

[...]

[Trump's media] enterprise is being valued by the market at about $8.2 billion, compared with Twitter Inc.’s almost $50 billion equity valuation.

[...]

When Trump first ran for president, he claimed to have a fortune of $10 billion. Now the retail trading frenzy may bring him somewhat closer to getting there.

Stock market is made of only hot air. Unfortunately, air makes weather.

I predict this plan will be as successful as Trump's earlier "media platform" that turned out to be simply his own microblog. With far more money involved, the new one will be a much more spectacular failure.

Just like in the good old dot bust days. Goal is not to actually make a usable product, but to attract investor capital. It's a scam, but legit.

https://twitter.com/joinmastodon/status/1451038281173504001

I predict this plan will be as successful as Trump's earlier "media platform" that turned out to be simply his own microblog. With far more money involved, the new one will be a much more spectacular failure.

No One Is Using Truth Social, So Digital World Acquisition Is Plummeting (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-one-using-truth-social-114312026.html)

In other news, Trump has (all but) announced his third coming for 2024. However, only Trump's personal Newsmax is following up on it.

Even though Trump has said things like "I ran twice and we won twice and we did better the second time. We did much better the second time. We may have to do it a third time. We are going to take back the White House in 2024!" and listed things that appear like an election platform, the candidacy is not considered official. On the one hand, Trump needs to run to be safe from the lawsuits that are plaguing him. On the other, if he begins too soon, he'd have to declare his finances accordingly, something that he is not good at, which is part of what has got him into legal trouble.

Anyway, his influence is fading. He cannot sustain the momentum anymore. Republican Party says (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-party-withdraws-us-commission-presidential-debates-2022-04-14/) they will not do presidential debates anymore. The party now only exists because Democrats allow it. There needs to be at least some seeming opposition. In themselves, Republicans have lost all purpose.

Republican Party says (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-party-withdraws-us-commission-presidential-debates-2022-04-14/) they will not do presidential debates anymore. The party now only exists because Democrats allow it. There needs to be at least some seeming opposition. In themselves, Republicans have lost all purpose.

Americans — bossy, querulous, ubiquitous — have for the last two years been almost entirely absent. Foreign countries suddenly feel more foreign. Long before the invasion of Ukraine, the era in which we exuberantly measured our civilization’s advance by tallying new McDonald’s had come to an end.

(source (https://spectatorworld.com/topic/the-last-american-tourist/))

While I usually make little of your anti-Americanism, ersi, and accept the plain fact that TDS is de rigueur among the chic the world round, you've missed something (...perhaps in translation?):
The Republicans have not opted out of presidential debates! They've simply decided not to play the part of Christians in the Colosseum! They're quite willing to debate.
Proper moderation and sensible rules for such events must, if they're going to participate, be agreed upon, first...

Of course, you probably find that unconscionable, and likely cowardly behavior.^{[1] [2]}

---

I'm as interested in Truth Social as I've ever been of Twitter... (And I presume GETTRl is similar.) I'm "enrolled", but I never go there -on my own impulse.
But -yes, indeed- the name "Truth Social" is a poor choice.^[3]
Donald J. Trump is a bombastic mogul-turned-entertainer-turned-politician! (It probably isn't entirely his fault, that he somehow imbibed middle-of-the-road conservative sensibilities...) I've heard your effulgent rhetoric poo-pooing his accomplishments (such effluvia!)  — especially as President! ...I'm nowhere near as impressed by it as you yourself are...
But you said

Anyway, his influence is fading. He cannot sustain the momentum anymore.

Hey, Nostra-damn-US! Don't you remember what happened in November 2016? :)
It would be foolhardy for his opponents to underestimate his prowess and his commitment to the process and its prospects.
Members of his -ostensibly own- Party cannot ignore him, be they seasoned pols or newcomers or hopeful neophytes:
At his age, Trump is -it must be admitted- still a force of Nature! Where and how he imbibed his brand of middle-of-the-road Republicanism, I don't know. (I was surprised at what I viewed as his accomplishments, dejected over some of his failures, and dismayed to see the outrageous opposition to anything Trump! TDS (in case you've forgot) stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome... It'll likely be in the next edition of the DSM. :)
And others in the political sphere will be -like it or not- adjudged Republican insofar as they accept his role. They will be defined by their relation to him and appreciated for their expressions of fealty (or of enmity) to him.

What's that old expression? Trump is living rent-free in their heads!

I, myself, demure... But you're too much (of whatever it is you are) a creature of prejudice, yours and others'.

How do the foreigners like the absence of Americans? Other things being equal, they probably like it quite a bit. Hordes of visitors tend to disrupt settled arrangements. But if you come from a country like Antigua or Aruba, in which upwards of 80 percent of the workforce are employed in tourism, the past couple of years have been calamitous. There are even some “real” countries in which around a fifth of the people make their living off some kind of tourism — like Greece, Portugal, New Zealand and Thailand. When you speak more generally about “travel” — just moving people around — that accounts for about a tenth of the world economy. The United States and Britain are more or less normal in this regard, at around 9 percent.

How does it feel to be an American tourist in such a tourist-free world? That is a more paradoxical subject.

(same article as above)

Yes, the Republican Party stands at a crossroad: Will it remain true to its founding principles? Or will it go along — to get along?
I too wonder...

Of course, you probably find that unconscionable, and likely cowardly behavior.

No, not cowardly. They are brazenly self-defeating - and proud of it! They keep casting their failures as if victories.

The RNC's decision follows grievances aired by former President Donald Trump and other Republicans about the timing of debates, debate formats and the selection of moderators.

In the absence of any improvement suggestions, aren't they meaningless objections? Obviously, timing, debate formats and the selection of moderators have been agreed all along. What's the problem now? That the rules are equal? The only problem is the unwillingness to debate.

As to Trump specifically, why would anyone trust the cheat, liar, and twice-impeached failure? Are scandals a good thing for the political culture in general and to the Republican party in particular?

Which is why so many of your responses devolve into mere name-calling... I myself like a well-put pejorative and I do still appreciate the hoary fine art of invective! But, sans substantive comment it's not just tiring; it's a waste of time.

Which of my response is a mere name-calling? That slavery continued at least a hundred years after civil war? That Trump is a treasonous nepotist dictator-worshipping compulsive liar? These are plain facts. Fact is quite good substance in any discussion - except with you.

If Republicans are to survive, they'd better find a non-Trumpite next time and do the debates as usual. Of course, even if they embarrass themselves as badly next time as they did last time, Democrats will continue to keep them on lifeline as the main nominal opposition, so voters have the illusion that they have options and freedom of choice among the candidates. Democrats enjoy a moronic and weak enemy rather than a smart and strong enemy.

That slavery continued at least a hundred years after civil war? That Trump is a treasonous nepotist dictator-worshipping compulsive liar? These are plain facts.

Never the bridesmaid, always the stripper at the bachelor party the night before! :) What an interesting world you live in...

Do you notice how you post zero substance, just name-calling? You are a perfect embodiment of projection. I quite understand that, being bone-headedly partisan, you are simply following the example of the Republican party, e.g. Republican party says "Democrats steal elections" when in reality Republicans steal elections, "Democrats are totalitarian Communists" when in reality Republicans just had the most totalitarian president ever, etc.

Similarly, you just whined that my responses devolve to name-calling without a substantive comment, but in fact it is you doing it, posting an insult with no relation to the topic. Sheer projection.

Just saying. I do not expect you to learn from this. You consistently fail to spot substance. You do not know what substance is. You only know the word and you think that saying it means you know what it is, but no, you don't. Have you clarified to yourself meanwhile what news are?

you just whined that my responses devolve to name-calling without a substantive comment, but in fact it is you doing it, posting an insult with no relation to the topic. Sheer projection.

:) I sometime think ersi is Eliza (http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/eliza.htm)'s evil twin :(

I also think that a Trump will run, but it is going to be a very short run, either utterly embarrassing or utterly forgettable. He won't get half as far as Larry Elder, not even a quarter.

He kept teasing it all the time, practically announced his run very soon on his rallies, and now it is official in the worst possible way. He has not been reinstated. He has lost all the election lawsuits (and also lost the relevant legal team). He has been hit with additional lawsuits regarding his theft of presidential documents (not lost that one yet, but already lost his relevant legal team) and his finances in New York. In midterm elections, when normally the counter-president party does very well, Republicans did very lukewarmly and all important Trump endorsements failed.

And now he has announced his official candidacy. Did anyone notice? According to my prediction, there's nothing to see here.

The final report appeared just in time as a Christmas present for Trump https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf

Results are as follows.

Trump (and others) referred to "possible prosecution":

The Select Committee has referred Donald Trump and others for possible prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2383, including for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.

Law amendments to reaffirm that Vice President is not the maker of next President:

To deter other future attempts to overturn Presidential Elections, the House of Representatives has passed H.R. 8873, “The Presidential Election Reform Act,” and the Senate should act promptly to send a bill with these principles to the President. H.R. 8873 reaffirms that a Vice President has no authority or discretion to reject an official electoral slate submitted by the Governor of a state.

Consider a purge in federal/congressional offices (specifically among those who failed to vote correctly during impeachment?):

The Committee believes that those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and then, on January 6th, engaged in insurrection can appropriately be disqualified and barred from holding government office—whether federal or state, civilian or military—absent at least two-thirds of Congress acting to remove the disability pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

And amend some more laws for the future, if prosecution is difficult or penalties ineffective:

As indicated in the Report, the Committee believes that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)2 and other existing provisions of law can be applied to efforts to obstruct, influence, or impede the joint session on January 6th, including to related planning efforts to overturn the lawful election results on that date. To the extent that any court or any other prosecutorial authorities ultimately reach any differing conclusion, Congress should amend those statutes to cover such conduct. Congress should also consider whether the severity of penalties under those statutes is sufficient to deter unlawful conduct threatening the peaceful transfer of power.

Don't they look too much to prevent similar events in the future by overhauling legal acts and regulations with amendments and reforms? If amendments and reforms are needed, then current laws may not be enough. And if current laws are not enough, then criminal referrals and calls for prosecution may end up empty, because amendments and reforms will not have retroactive effect.

Of course, if laws and procedures worked, Trump would have been locked up already. It's very long overdue. The leader of Oath Keepers was found guilty of seditious conspiracy, of disrupting a peaceful transfer of power, so why the delay with Trump?

As Trump says, "Witch hunt!" At least Trump's re-run for president is definitely over now - it was already for other reasons.

Occasionally I must admit I was wrong. I thought Jan 6 would never materialise as a legal process against Trump, because it would imply that the president has accountability. The cornerstone of the American political system is that the president is unaccountable. However, against all odds it just happened, Trump is indicted with Jan 6.

There are now three important indictments against Trump:
1. Indictment I: The Hush Money
2. Indictment II: The Documents
3. Indictment III: Conspiracy to overturn the election results

Each one of these should separately be able to take Trump off the race. A normal presidential candidate would already be off the race by mere rumour of such allegations. I still think that Trump will not make it to nomination and someone will carry him off legs first if he gets too close to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk_a_OFXLgY

Trump has no legal defence. He keeps threatening the prosecutor, the judge, and witnesses. Trump's plan is to incite another insurrection.

The establishment may be afraid of making Trump a martyr, but I would suggest not to chicken out. When Trump has rallied his supporters to protests lately, hardly anybody has shown up. His paramilitary organisations, Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, are headless now. Trump's lawyers and associates support him only in word, not in deed. Or the little deeds they do fail.

The deeds Trump requires are counterproductive to due process, so anybody with a bias towards due process resists those deeds. It's lawyer's job to control the client, not the other way, but with Trump and his lawyers it is the other way.

So, lock him up. Nothing bad will happen. Nobody will defend him. Everybody will be relieved. Edit: Those who promised to pardon him won't, or I should say none of them gets the chance. Trump may pardon himself in prison but it would go unrecognised.

Tell Trump that he breached the protective order and therefore he must now be locked up until trial. The way I see it, there was no point to the protective order in the first place. From Trump's character it was already a given that he would escalate and breach it. Now he did. It is correct to react accordingly. Otherwise due process is out of the window, as it has been thus far, Trump being pampered as a priviliged spoiled kid, which only spoils him further.

Tell Trump that he breached the protective order and therefore he must now be locked up until trial.

It so happens that there's Amendment XIV Section 3 that says that an insurrectionist is ineligible to state office.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

(It mentions senator, representative, elector and vice president, but not president. However, it also mentions anyone who has previously taken an oath, so there's no reason why this should not apply to the president.)

And here's an article that lays out some points how it might work, with references to case law.

The first question under Section 3 is who decides whether someone is ineligible. The answer is that a court must determine if someone outside of Congress is subject to the disability.

[...]

Second, there is the question of whether Section 3 is self-enforcing. The answer is probably not. [...] Congress enacted Section 3 enforcement legislation in 1870 that authorized the Department of Justice to bring quo warranto actions—a common-law writ asking, “by what warrant” does someone lawfully hold office—to oust from office some ineligible officials. But Congress repealed this statute in the 1940s as part of a broad cleanup of “obsolete” provisions. If Chase was right, then Congress would be well advised to enact new Section 3 enforcement legislation.

[...]

Third, a presidential pardon cannot cure Section 3 ineligibility.

[...]

The harder question is what constitutes an “insurrection,” a point on which I have thus far been unable to find any particularly helpful authority. [...] Almost immediately after the riot, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle described the violence as an insurrection. Why was that? The most logical answer is that the violence was intended to disrupt a constitutionally mandated process—the 12th Amendment’s electoral vote count—for the formal recognition of the presidential election results. In other words, this was not just a violent attack upon Congress, as bad as that would be. The mob was seeking to halt or overturn a core constitutional function at the seat of government, which can reasonably be described as an attempt to replace law with force. The criminal charges subsequently brought against the people who entered the Capitol also indicate that some of them intended to inflict bodily harm on members of Congress, which can be reasonably understood as a direct attack on the legislative branch itself and, more generally, the existing government. Notably, federal prosecutors described the riot as a “violent insurrection” in at least one recent court filing.

What’s more, the article of impeachment adopted against President Trump by the House of Representatives expressly describes what occurred as an insurrection and cites Section 3. In a Section 3 case, courts will probably defer to this conclusion, especially since the members of Congress were direct witnesses to the event. An acquittal of Trump in the impeachment trial may undercut that deference somewhat, but not fully.

So it's possible to disqualify him as an insurrectionist. But seriously, he should be behind locks already for his tax scam.

Now Trump received an indictment from Georgia also. The determination is there to take him off the race. The sad thing is how long it is taking and how none of it has prevented him from running for president thus far. An average citizen with Trump's kind of record would be locked up already and definitely would not have been allowed to get mobilised for another coup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPnT9WMaf6U

Btw, fact #5 is why Trump should not have become the president in the first place. He was a walking definition of ineligible.

Trump’s mug shot made public by Fulton County Jail after arrest (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/donald-trump-mugshot-georgia-jail-fulton-county-arrest-rcna101664)

(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2023-08/230824-donald-trump-mugshot-2x1-cs-254ed2.jpg)

Come on, Donald. You know this instantly becomes an item of worship among your fans, so why not smile a bit for their sake?

(It mentions senator, representative, elector and vice president, but not president. However, it also mentions anyone who has previously taken an oath, so there's no reason why this should not apply to the president.)

But it seems that people who think that the president is included there in Section 3 of 14th Amendment don't take on the case. The judges who take on the case are in line with the self-preservation instinct of the establishment. The principle is that laws don't apply to the establishment.

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

But Judge Wallace, a state district court judge in Denver, concluded that Section 3 did not include the presidential oath in that category.

The clause does not explicitly name the presidency, so that question hinged on whether the president was included in the
category “officer of the United States.”

Because of “the absence of the president from the list of positions to which the amendment applies combined with the fact that Section 3 specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to ‘support’ the Constitution whereas the presidential oath is to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution,” Judge Wallace wrote, “it appears to the court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.”

[...]

Judge Wallace is the first judge to rule on the merits of whether Section 3 applies to Mr. Trump. Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire have been dismissed on procedural grounds, and a judge in Michigan recently ruled that the questions were political ones that courts did not have the authority to decide.

The decision is quite hefty and can be found here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

I haven't looked at it yet, but I'll note there's a footnote to that sentence.

The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court,
however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time,
the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers
suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.

And for reference, section three:

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial
officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each
House, remove such disability.

I'll have to read through the argument in more detail, but I'd be surprised if the president weren't regarded as an officer of the state at the time.

The bulk of the argument seems to start on page 98.

310.
Magliocca further argued that contemporary usage supports the view that
the President is an “officer of the United States.” Andrew Johnson repeatedly referred to
himself as such in presidential proclamations, members of Congress both during the
39th Congress that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and during Johnson’s
impeachment several years later repeatedly referred to the President the same way, and
earlier presidents in the Nineteenth Century were referred to the same way. 11/01/23 Tr.
56:3–59:16, 69:21–71:21.

311.
On the other hand, Intervenors argue that five constitutional provisions
show that the President is not an “officer of the United States.”
•The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.
•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.
•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.
•Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from
“Officers of the United States” because the oath taken by the President
under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed
for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.

The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

This argument is shockingly weak. Obviously the president cannot appoint themselves; only dictators do that. They are appointed by the people (or perhaps we should say the electors, not that the distinction matters here). That the president appoints all other officers of the state makes them the highest officer of the state, not not an officer of the state. This clause is clarifying both the power and confines of their higher office.

Of course what matters most is contemporaneous language. Since the court saw fit to include 310 without any counterarguments, one might be strongly inclined assume there simply aren't any worth mentioning.

•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.

A better argument than the above, though of course we can note they're explicitly held to the same standards by this text.

•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.

The same weak sauce as before.

•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.

It's more logical to conclude that the distinction simply isn't relevant here, the way it's relevant in the Appointments Clause and the Commissions Clause where the highest officer is granted those additional powers.

Nevertheless this could've looked impressively persuasive if they hadn't included that bit about contemporary usage by Andrew Johnson and earlier presidents. Of course anyone with half a brain cell would immediately check up on that, but still.

Colorado Supreme Court turned out braver than the lonely judge: Yes, Trump is an insurrectionist and therefore removed from ballot.

Technically it will suffice to repeat this in a few more states, but it would be more correct to decide it in SCOTUS. And incorrect of SCOTUS to leave the decision to the last minute.

Colorado court used Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's ruling to justify disqualifying Trump

    - Trump is disqualified from the ballot in Colorado, the state's Supreme Court ruled.
    - But the case is sure to go to the Supreme Court.
    - Colorado's court cited Justice Neil Gorsuch in their decision.

The Colorado Supreme Court cited Gorsuch's ruling as cover for its unprecedented decision to kick Trump off a primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

"As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,'" the state opinion reads.

Wasn't Gorsuch one of Oakdale's favourites?

Wasn't Gorsuch one of Oakdale's favourites?

Frenzie, do you want to tell him? Or must I? :)

Oh, well. I probably must:
Gorsuch in Bostock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County) played a word game with "sex" and "gender". and thus derived an interpretation of the law that Congress had repeatedly refused to accept. Your contention was, basically, that the age-old procedures of Common Law countenanced this  ignored the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is not a Common Law court...
You commended him for this. I derided him for it.

But -of course- because Gorsuch has been described as "Conservative" and something he said may support an ultra-liberal (for ersi, any anti Trump) stance, I must be a hypocrite! His typical as hominem! (He still uses and mis-uses Aristotle's logic — syllogisms, which are too complicated for him to understand. (W.V.O. Quine published an axiomatization of such... Again, of course, he remains unaware.^[1] )

p.s.,
ersi: In the case cited Hassan was not born in the U.S. or any of its territories... The Constitution's enumeration of qualifications decided the case.
Likewise, the 14th Amendment required Congress to pass legislation to enforce the pertinent portion of Section 3... They did: 18 U.S. Code § 2383.
Oddly enough, Donald J. Trump has not been charged with such crime, let alone convicted!
But four Colorado Supreme Court Justices -perhaps with the connivance of one of their inferior courts (that's not passing the buck, is it? :) )- decided, without due process, that he was guilty.

Folks in other countries may readily accept such shenanigans. Americans tend to get a little testy, when their basic rights are abrogated...

But -of course- because Gorsuch has been described as "Conservative" and something he said may support an ultra-liberal (for ersi, any anti Trump) stance, I must be a hypocrite!

You're a hypocrite either way, with or without Gorsuch. But thanks for clarifying some of Gorsuch's shenanigans. (I really could not care less.) It remains to be figured out if you are against him because he is not hypocritical enough for you or because you're aspiring to out-hypocrite him but your efforts go unrecognised.

Namely: Yet again you have nothing to say about the substantive matter, the leading Republican presidential candidate Trump who is at the same time election head-fraudster and insurrection arch-conspirator. You always miss the point in every topic every single time.

the leading Republican presidential candidate Trump who is at the same time election head-fraudster and insurrection arch-conspirator. You always miss the point in every topic every single time.

You mean, I can't enter into the Bizarro-world inhabited by one ersi?

I'm a hypocrite? :) Your logic is lapsing: In what (try to be specific!) am I hypocritical? You mean your ad hominem fluffery has to be accepted, otherwise you lose your case? Yeah. I know.
Logic ain't your strong suit.

In what (try to be specific!) am I hypocritical?

You are a hyper-partisan QAnon Trumpite of the alt-facts gang. Is this specific enough? Need more details?

Thus far you have missed every relevant detail and fact, so we will never get to the big picture. Not in this life.

You are a hyper-partisan QAnon Trumpite of the alt-facts gang. Is this specific enough? Need more details?

Yeah. One example or two... But you don't have them: For you, name-calling and hand-waving are sufficient! :)

Since you can't or won't be bothered to read and understand what I write, you rely on your absurd sufficiency, much like the four Colorado Supreme Court Justices recently: We know he's guilty, so we treat him so! (Might work in other countries; it's not supposed to in the U.S.)

Quote from: ersi on 2023-12-23, 03:50:59

You are a hyper-partisan QAnon Trumpite of the alt-facts gang. Is this specific enough? Need more details?

Yeah. One example or two...

The examples are all over the place, both in this and the other threads. And now you provided one more:

...like the four Colorado Supreme Court Justices recently: We know he's guilty, so we treat him so! (Might work in other countries; it's not supposed to in the U.S.)

Actually, in both USA and in every other country it is precisely the job of judges to judge who is guilty or not. But not for you when it comes to Trump (this is a hypocrisy, I should point out lest it is somehow unclear to you).

Actually, in both USA and in every other country it is precisely the job of judges to judge who is guilty or not.

Actually, in the USA, the suspect needs to be indicted by a Grand Jury for a specific offense and prosecuted before a judge and jury of his peers, with his full rights as a citizen in play... For the most part, a trial judge here sits mainly to preside over the adversarial trial and see to it that the niceties of the law are followed by both the prosecution and the defense. (It's an Anglo-Saxon thing.)
The jury determines matters of fact, and guilt or innocence.

Actually, [...] The jury determines matters of fact, and guilt or innocence.

So you have not noticed the court cases, including involving Trump, where there is no jury because it is not required, and you do not know that Supreme Courts (both of the states and federal) do not do jurys in the cases they pick up for their own judgement?

Why do I always know everything better about your country than you do? You are both a hypocrite and a doofus, and very persistent in both.

you do not know that Supreme Courts (both of the states and federal) do not do jurys in the cases they pick up for their own judgement?

In the Federal Supreme Court, Article III of the Constitution stipulates which cases are the purview of the court. Can you show an exception for any State Supreme Court? Are you familiar with the phrase "of first impression"? The Supreme Court of the U.S. is an appellant's court...

A case in point: Jack Smith wanted SCOTUS to expedite hearing his contention that Trump should be constrained from appealing (thru the regular means) his jeopardy in the Insurrection charges filed...
SCOTUS said NO! He's an American citizen; his legal rights can't be abrogated.

Jack should go back to the Hague... :) (He's had quite a bit of bad luck with SCOTUS over the years.)

Quote from: ersi on 2023-12-23, 05:55:25

you do not know that Supreme Courts (both of the states and federal) do not do jurys in the cases they pick up for their own judgement?

In the Federal Supreme Court, Article III of the Constitution stipulates which cases are the purview of the court. Can you show an exception for any State Supreme Court?

Since you think you know better, lay out the argument to demonstrate that Colorado Supreme Court did anything they should not have done. The fact is that Supreme Courts decide, whatever it is they decide, without jury. And they decide constitutional matters, which is what Section 3 of Amendment XIV is.

State Supreme Courts do not decide U.S. Constitutional matters... And the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes state courts, including their Supreme Courts, subservient to SCOTUS — which presides over federal law, and ultimately the Constitution.
Only by amending the Constitution can Congress over-rule SCOTUS. (Of course, Presidents like Obama and Biden can thumb their noses... But there are consequences! :) )

For you, ersi, I'll spell it out in short sentences:

The U.S. Constitution lists the qualifications for the office of the Presidency. (You can look it up...)
While the 14th Amendment's Section Three prohibits "insurrectionists" from office, the required act of congress to effect this prohibition was made and needs be followed.
The effecting statute has not been followed. (I.e., no lawful prosecution has taken place...)
Hence, no determination of guilt has been reached — by law. And -obviously- no punishment that deprives a citizen of his rights can be applied.
Q.E.D.

BTW (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2720.msg87679#msg87679): Clarance Thomas remains my "favorite" Supreme Court Justice!

Dear ersi, when will you learn "An ounce of perception is worth a pound of presumption"? :)

State Supreme Courts do not decide U.S. Constitutional matters...

Obviously they need to follow the U.S. constitution, right?

While the 14th Amendment's Section Three prohibits "insurrectionists" from office, the required act of congress to effect this prohibition was made and needs be followed.
The effecting statute has not been followed. (I.e., no lawful prosecution has taken place...)
Hence, no determination of guilt has been reached — by law. And -obviously- no punishment that deprives a citizen of his rights can be applied.
Q.E.D.

How about all those other state Supreme Courts who have rulings on the very same point - whether Trump qualifies or not under Section 3 of Amendment XIV of U.S. Constitution - in Arizona, Minnesota and Michigan? Nothing to say against them, because they decided the other way? That's a hypocrite again...

You are not just full of bunkum, but full of utter, total and complete bunkum, easily debunked. State Supreme Courts are serially issuing rulings on the matter. They are judges judging without jury. They do not care about your alternative universe where you think you are the supreme legal expert.

Edit: Here's some actual legal expertise:

Congress should take action to enforce Section Three against anyone engaged in the January 6th insurrection. There is currently no federal statutory authority to enforce Section Three, and if this deficiency is not addressed many problems will follow. First, some states may simply choose to ignore Section Three or do minimal enforcement. Second, having each state enforce Section Three in its own way will result in a haphazard system especially ill-suited to resolving a question of presidential ineligibility. Third, if former President Trump runs again, his eligibility must be determined promptly--before any elections take place--otherwise the Republican nominating contest will be thrown in chaos. But the ability of the ex-President or his opponents to engage in litigation gamesmanship during a primary process where each state is acting independently could easily thwart a prompt resolution by the Supreme Court. And it would be particularly unfortunate if the Court were called upon to resolve the issue in an emergency application for a stay on the eve of a primary where due deliberation on the arguments could not occur.

So there, to reiterate, "There is currently no federal statutory authority to enforce Section Three," so everybody just does what they think they should or can. The article continues:

Congress can resolve many of these issues by using its enforcement authority under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to create a rational and fair process for Section Three claims.

This is a noble hope, but also vain one. The current Congress has just one thing on its mind: Partisan bickering. No law, no order, no principle, no morals, nothing matters. Just senseless partisan bickering.

How about all those other state Supreme Courts who have rulings on the very same point - whether Trump qualifies or not under Section 3 of Amendment XIV of U.S. Constitution - in Arizona, Minnesota and Michigan?

They've yet to be decided... Hence, a SCOTUS decision against the Colorado Supreme Court would be timely, and moot the others.

But — What fun when Biden is disqualified on (technically spurious federal) grounds! (Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida...)

As I cautioned: "An ounce of perception is worth a pound of presumption"

But — What fun when Biden is disqualified on (technically spurious federal) grounds! (Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida...)

As I cautioned: "An ounce of perception is worth a pound of presumption"

Different from you, I have no partisan bone to pick on this issue. Let Biden go to jail, I don't care. If Biden goes to jail, but not Trump, it proves what I already know: USA is not a country of law or order or any valuable principle worth emulating. I know this because Trump is not in jail. He objectively deserved to decades ago (when he was still Democrat by the way :D ), but instead he was rewarded with presidency.

Whereas you have nothing but partisan bone to pick. It's particularly hilarious since nobode else has.

what I already know: USA is not a country of law or order or any valuable principle worth emulating.

And there it is, back to your comfortable position! :)

Won't you start a thread about Estonian politics, etc. ? That might be fun! (You surely don't fear the Gulag, do you? :) )

A Trump fan made a video "God made Trump". Trump shared it.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111703421569603715

On some next rally, it will not be enough for Trump to declare himself a dictator. He will declare himself god.

Will that be too much for you, Oakdale? Dictator is fine by you, so why not god?

Trump Encourages Putin to Attack NATO Members

[Trump said in a campaign speech:] One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”

Of course, this is not about paying bills. It's about defuncting Nato altogether.

Those who don't pay bills are far away from Russia, so Russia is no threat to them. Russia is a threat to those Nato members who always paid the bills. What Trump is actually saying here is that Putin is free to attack without any repercussions. All incursions by Putin have been net positives anyway for Putin, but Trump promises better than that.

I did not notice Putin mentioning Trump in his exchange with Tucker, but apparently Trump got this message out of it.

He was persuaded to leave NATO alone the first time. It probably won't work the second time.

A Russia with the US president in their pocket is, to put it mildly, a dangerous place. It dramatically increases the risk that Kremlin will do something irreversible.

This could easily become the most disastrous election since 1933.

Of course, another fundamental issue is that "pay bills" is not how Nato membership works. The fact that Trump thinks that USA functions in Nato like the mafia don who collects tribute is yet another disqualification of his. Naturally, he cannot think any other way, because mafia don is his mode of operation, for which he should have been locked up in late 80's already, or in late 00's at the latest.

Instead Trump was rewarded with the presidency and this only made him think of himself as an untouchable mafia don. Probably the elites reasoned along the lines, "We are all corrupt, so let's have the most brazenly corruptest of us have the most visible post, so the rest of us will look less corrupt." Hopefully they have realised their mistake now and want to take the country out of the third world dump failed state status. I still entertain some hope that Trump will be taken off the ballot as justice and law and order and due process required a long time ago.