Wait. I thought Trump was definitely, most assuredly 💯 going to get into a world war. I mean that’s what every major media outlet, Paul Krugman phony wannabe told me repeatedly for 4 years.
The really sad part about reality hitting liberals in the face is... WE all suffer along the way.
Why does everything have to revolve around Trump? He was mediocre at best as President. He passed Tax Reform and Criminal Justice Reform. (How is that turning out, by the way) Trump lovers are just as bad as the Woke as you live in an alternative universe. Trump was a horrible manager and judge of people; he is thin-skinned and has no agenda to match the moment. The only person who can keep this idiot Biden in office is Trump, as he won't be able to make the election about Biden as he will fall into every trap laid for him.
I think both you and JJosh are correct. People are replying like it has to be one way or the other. The Ds definitely did paint Trump as the one to bring about WW3, but turns out he's a peacenik and we're on verge of a world war now. But I agree with you Trump in the White House won't solve any problem. He gives voice to the discontent and through him they finally got their voices heard and gain back some feeling of control. He's even right on some policy positions. But he's a lousy executor. Plus his huge ego and narcissism is what drives him, so everything he does is about him. During his last term his administration management was total chaos for 4 years. He handling of Covid was chaotic and he politicized a pandemic to score political points. I'm not seeing him getting us out of all the crisis going on. But between him and Biden, sadly Biden has proven to be way worse and dangerous. Plus the Woke stranglehold has to be broken.
I'm really frustrated that these are the two candidates we're stuck with. I don't feel democratically represented. The two parties system is dysfunctional.
Or their families seeing they're probably executed.
Want to discuss Ukraine? Or Biden's 37% approval? Or 300 fentanyl deaths/day?
How about known terrorists walking across the border bringing explosive devices?
The economy is much better? Have you looked at your property taxes? Insurance premiums? Or are you too busy tracking down the junkie who carjacked you?
You're right--they both suck. I don't necessarily need a President looking to solve problems, because even if they're right, they'll be opposed and nothing will change. I would like, however, a President who doesn't CAUSE problems. Trump caused a lot of problems in the minds of CNN and Rachel Maddow, but many of them (start with the Russia hoax and go from there) were only in the minds of corporate media. Plus, he didn't start any wars.
President Obama expanded illegal surveillance of Americans, after Candidate Obama said he would cease it immediately. Obama took drone killing to the next level. And now Biden is building the wall on the border in a tremendous moment of hypocrisy. Oh yeah, and he has expanded and fueled a war that didn't need fueling in Ukraine. And he is not only not offering a counterweight to Bibi's bloodlust, he's offering all the weapons and dollars necessary to massacre thousands.
I think Trump is a putrid example of a human, but he wasn't the worst President ever (that was Bush 2), and I'm not sure he won't be back, given Biden's lack of appeal to voters.
“I would like, however, a President who doesn't CAUSE problems.” Can’t lower the bar further than that lol. But I have the same feeling. Plus, they are both at such an advanced age, we need to pay more attention to the VP than we usually do. What if one of them (the elected one) kicks the bucket? Reminds me of the Soviet era when we had to listen to the Swan Lake on the radio continuously as one aged leader followed another one into afterlife: Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko. There were many jokes about that succession told around kitchen tables. I thought it could never happen in the US.
No argument from me. I can say a lot of things critical about Trump but they end up all being about his bad behaviors and buffoonery. In retrospect he's actually far from being as bad as Bush II, Obama, and definitely definitely better than Biden.
Others might argue Obama was a better president but for me, absolutely not. He ruined everything I cared about.
Obama's biggest issue was that he wasted--WASTED--a massive amount of popularity and momentum, only to turn to the usual neocon, now neoliberal nonsense about wars and "security." the delta between what he could have done and what he did is greater than any President I can think of.
My exact thoughts (except I don’t actually believe that Biden will be the Dem candidate). It is embarrassing and humiliating that our politicians are generally of such low quality. I tend to think that it is a direct consequence of our abysmal education system and pathologically biased media.
Yep. It's only November of the year before and the two "leading candidates" are in their 80s. This race hasn't even begun, because voters don't generally start paying attention until a few months before Election Day. It could be Lynne and Gericke on the ticket, for God's sake . . .
We could straighten this crap out. Have you heard about Hawley's bill to clamp down on corporate campaign donations? To which I say, please Lord. It would do away with a lot of the political commercials. McConnell is opposed and threatening "reprisals" for all Republicans supporting it. Which confirms my suspicions of McConnell. But supposedly there is Democrat support too.
ALL politicians are thin-skinned narcissists and horrible managers of people. Ask those who have worked for Sheila Jackson Lee and Amy Klobuchar. Biden is Ron Burgundy at this point. Complaining about Trump's management skills is like saying water is wet.
Not All, there are effective governors all over the country. My point is that the when the wheels come off, we are going to need an A+ leader. Trump is a D+. Biden is a F. God forbid Harris who would be n F minus. I think DeSantis would be a B+. That is why I am voting for him.
Problem with Trump is that he won’t get the democrat voters who are sick of democrat politicians and policies. I believe there are plenty now after seeing what’s happened in the past few years. But they’d rather continue to vote for this crap than to give in and vote for Trump. The outcome of election could be the end of America, and I can’t handle the chance of this happening.
"The eight-year Obama slump?" His first two years were slumpy due to the aftershock of the 2nd Great Depression. (It was NOT a recession, in my view, it was a short but vicious Depression.) Then the economy roared for his next six years. Trump inherited the roar and kept it going.
Presidents really don't deserve credit OR blame for the economy--they simply don't have the power to change a multi-trllion-dollar behemoth on a dime, even over four years--but that's politics.
I'm not entirely sure where you were living, but I was living in America, and things started improving the moment Trump took office, and started improving rapidly once we got our corporate tax rates more in line with the rates in every other industrialized nation in the world.
Obama presided over the second worst economic recovery in American history, for the simple reason that business owners didn't trust him. I spoke to them. That is simple fact. They didn't trust FDR either, and most thought he was trying to impose a Fascist system on them, because he WAS. Only the so-called Four Horsemen on the Supreme Court prevented literal Fascism from being enacted here.
I am slowly realizing that for discussion to have any purpose, I need to be dealing with serious people. It's not enough for me to be right, or to be able to articulate my views at length (this is very, very short by my standards). I need to be interacting with people capable of learning, and I don't think most people on this or other websites actually are capable of learning.
If you don't think Obama's policies created a lot of problems, I don't think you are interested in learning either, although you may be capable of it. One of my favorite restaurants in town closed directly because of his policies. The owner cited them.
Biden/Obama is not even REMOTELY equal to Trump. Not in the same league. There were good reasons the crooks running this country worked so hard to kneecap Trump. And if he were anyone else they would have succeeded. They still may succeed, but unless you hate your children and those of others, this is not something to be wished for.
Trump's tax cuts were good if you are a giant corporation or in the upper 0.1%. For every nickel saved by a normal person, a corporation kept from paying $100 in taxes. There are no good tax cuts for rich people and corporations, most of whom/which don't pay their fair share now.
I think it would have been more honest for you to have said “I dont really understand economics but I’m not going to let it keep me from sharing my opinion.”
Paul Krugman got a Nobel Prize. Maybe you can get one too. Merit is no longer even relevant, much less necessary.
Maybe that would be a nice fantasy to indulge the next time you spark up.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the number one priority of every politician is getting elected, and staying in office. Everything else is secondary. It's incredible that George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms. Consider Dianne Feinstein. Or Mitch McConnell. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Joe Biden. Or Jesse Helms. Or...
The reason Governors seem more effective is that most if not all of them are term-limited, and looking to burnish resumes for higher office. Glenn Youngkin and Ron DeSantis look like the apples of your eye right now, but if they have to run nationally, they will moderate their positions, and make sure that they maintain a certain level of milquetoast policy in order to make huge royalties on their memoirs and upcoming NetFlix or Spotify some such production deal after being Term Limited from being POTUS after 2 terms.
I agree with you. The Federal government is a big mess with promises we can't possitbly follow up on as the people you mentioned spent in the moment leaving the problems long after they are dead. All I am saying is Trump does not have the skill set to be a good President. He proved that during his first term and I am not axious to see a second one. Desantis and Youngkin might be bad, but I know tht Trump wasn't any good. Thanks for sharing your thougths.
De Santis would be amazing, relative to all the other nominees on both sides. If we had a choice between Kennedy and De Santis, it would be such a refreshing change to suddenly have a difficult choice in a presidential election and to live in a democracy that doesn’t seem to be on the verge of having all its wheels fall off. But inevitably we will have a choice between Biden and Trump. So the question we need to be asking is if life was better during the last three years or during the prior four years. Despite Trump’s many flaws, the country managed to flourish in relative terms during his tenure, and to turn into a dystopian nightmare during Biden’s term. We ought to keep that in mind in the voting booth.
There is no doubt that things were better, over all, prior to the Covid/Floyd era as opposed to now.
For me, the worry of a Trump second term is that his faults make him less likely, to be able to right our sinking ship. When he took office in 2016, while there was deep political rot, things —on the surface —appeared to be OK. But these are extraordinary times, which require extraordinary men. In my view, Trump is not up to the task.
(Edited for stupid commas that Apple voice dictation inserts inappropriately. Grrrr.)
As much of an incompetent, self-serving, and mendacious clown Trump was as president, he oversaw (I won't say passed!) things like the Abraham Accords (the FIRST glimmer of hope in the Mid-East), and nominated three conservative Justices to the Supreme Court, although it was Mitch McConnel who guided those choices through nomination and confirmation. Trump did very little, himself. On the OTHER hand, Biden has overseen the greatest increase in world-wide violence and instability in generations, and drove the country to high inflation and a possible recession with his approval of a massive, and phony, Inflation Reduction Act! So, who is worse, the mendacious and undisciplined clown, or the doddering old fool who has been on the wrong side in every foreign policy matter for 50 years?
I will vote for Trump for a third time over Biden but I really think a good GOP canidate can crush Biden and have coattails to pass an agenda. Trump is so toxic to so many that people will vote against him rather for Biden. I want to focus on Biden not Trump. I want a big win , not a soap opera for another four years.
I despise McConnell. He may have guided those things through the Senate but only because Trump gave him the opportunity to do so. He did done nothing on his own. He is now leading g one side of the Republican party split. He fired a salvo against Hawley and those of like mind yesterday. He is the Senate Pelosi.
A big part of Trump's agenda was to keep us out of foreign wars. He succeeded. The Left crucified him for it. Biden's ego-driven debacle in Afghanistan gave Russia, Iran, China, Europe, and every country in the Middle East the measure of this dangerous, deceitful, dunce of a president. God help us.
I don't have TDS, I think Trump is better than Biden but think the GOP can do better than Trump. I voted for him twice but think there are better people out there to meet the moment.
I'm afraid that, now the Democrats have shown him the way, Trump in his second term will not fight the Deep State but will use it for revenge against those who are persecuting him. We need someone focused on saving the country more than personal vendettas.
But you need a good team to fight the Deep state and dicpline. Trump has not and good people won't work for a guy who wants people kissing his ass. So what chance does he have?
I think you just hit the nail on the head. Trumps biggest issue is that he will not be king. He can't will things into existence. He needs people to help him do things, and his list of allies grows thin.
Biden can be literally brain dead and still get things done because he has an entire party working in lockstep. Trump alienates both Dems, Independents, and some Reps.
A ham sandwich would be better than Mr Biden. I won't ask who would be better than Mr Trump. I'll stipulate Mr Desantis looks ok on paper but he shows no sign of being electable and he hasn't got the cushion that FYou money provides. Otherwise; swamp.
Trump was a very good President. Yes, he made some bad appointments but other than his promotion of a rushed, experimental ineffective vaccine that is somewhat dangerous which of his polices were mediocre? Be specific.
He failed to replace Obamacare. He lost Congress and spent like a Democrat. He didn't tackle the major issues of Entitlement Spending. He did pick three great Justicies and his Remain in Mexico policy was good. But he was horrible with Covid. So I give him a solid C. But we need an A team to get us out of this mess. He can't attract good people as good people don't want to work for a boss who wants his ass kissed all the time.
His polling is quite good, and the FACT is that peace was the result everywhere during his tenure, including the Abraham Accords, for which he was nominated for two Nobel Peace Prizes, and the meeting of the Korean leaders for the first time since the shooting stopped.
You are pushing nonsense. Why? Yes, he was backstabbed by pretty much everyone around him, but is that his fault? He stepped into a den of vipers and the vipers bit him. Is that an argument not to give him a second chance, this time knowing what he is facing? On the contrary: he's the ONLY smart choice at this point.
I can see he is your Hero but that does not explain away his inablity to have self dicipline and have a good team to get this done. You sould like woke white woman living in fantasy land rather than facing the hard truths. He is simply not the man for the moment. He is better than Biden but then again outside of Harris, who isn't?
Jimmy Carter had Camp David. Trump was OK,but he did things that any generic GOP canidate could have not. He is not as special as you make him out to be. You still can't tell me how and since more than 50% of the country despises him, how does he win? Have a good day!
He won the last election. Why would he not win again, now that the patent corruption and hatred of America that animate and fuel both Biden and the Democrats generally are undeniable?
Hes no saint, but nearly every negative story people tell about him is an ignorant or bald faced lie, and obviously so.
I'm not sure what turned the Nobel Committee into a farce for me, but it was either awarding one to Krugman or Obama. Arafat was borderline too, but at least there was something seemingly meaningful there.
I find it crazy that US Tax-payer is funding any of these conflicts. Israel is rich country with debt to GDP of 60%. While we are at 120%. Ukraine is one of most corrupt countries in the world with no resources and little strategic meaning.
As Israeli, I would be more happy for US to keep its money and start bringing its finances in order. Israel needs strong ally in long run, and the way US has been going, it might bankrupt itself. And this help that is discussed in congress, is just another giveaway to military industrial complex,
I’m sure the money is going to NGOs that will launder it back to Democrats. It’s amazing how much of the debt is from Democrats buying votes with welfare and laundering money back to their campaigns. It would actually be much cheaper if we just passed a law that allowed them to buy votes directly.
They are already buying votes openly and directly. In the last election I received a text from a Dem PAC (Progressive Turnout Project) offering me $250/week to “rally your friends and family to vote” (and you know which side they wanted me to rally them for!). They WRONGLY believed that I was a Democrat; in reality I have ALWAYS been a registered Independent.
Does the USA have any money left for the security of its citizens? Over 200 illegals on the terror watch list entering from our open borders and we can’t get an answer from Mayorkis on where they are. The day that man is no longer in a position of such power cannot come soon enough. He has been a complete failure (but a success in his eyes as this is everything he wanted to accomplish). We have a tiny percentage of money going to the southern border compared to the pile of billions going to Ukraine and now Israel. Insanity is an understatement.
The short answer is no. We need a Reagan-level military buildup -- but we can't fund it. 85% of the federal budget is consumed by the combination of two things: entitlement programs, and interest on the federal debt. Every single other thing that the federal government does comes out of the other 15%. Entitlement programs have eaten our lunch and dinner too. We can't touch them; there is no political will to, and even if there was, entitlement recipients will hold our cities hostage with threats of riots and revolts. Stick a fork in America. It's done. The world is about to enter a second Dark Age.
If we already spend more on military than the next 10 countries combined, where is there to go? Spend 5x the entire rest of the world? To what end? We're already hated because of the way we throw our military around; do you want that to get worse?
The largest groups of recipients of what you call entitlement programs are old people, with Social Security and Medicare. Your "hold our cities hostage" nonsense is a dog-whistle about all the "urban" welfare recipients. Go to rural areas in the flyover states to find your recipients--they are nice retirees who worked hard and deserve their Social Security and Medicare.
The Pentagon, DHS, CIA, FBI, etc. don't need more money.
I’ll make you even more depressed! On Biden’s first day, he signed an executive order that required Every. Single. Government. Department to oversee itself for DEI. So, we have the basic inefficiencies of government, now compounded by “drunken sailor spending” on anti-meritocracy programs to make itself even more inefficient and costly. It’s sort of an “entitlement program” built into every aspect of government. Woo-hoo!
They’re gentler than one of my relatives, who pays - uh, donates - to be on a weekly conference call with our own senator from Massachusetts, “Lie-a-wat ha”. He calls me an ignorant, stupid liar. I know otherwise.
I've questioned why we've bankrolled Israel's military & economy for the past 75 years many many times. I understand the need to do this immediately following WWII but why would this happen for almost 8 decades now? Why would any of this funding be a gift rather than a loan? The question is rhetorical as I think most know the answers.
The reason, or argument if you prefer, is geopolitical influence. Israel is the only country in the ME that is democratic and West friendly. During the Cold War the dominant policy was to exert our sphere of influence. Also balance of power. Israel technically serves as our satellite in the ME to maintain our presence and influence in the oil rich region, and our veiled threat against the surrounding ME countries going crazy doing anything against our interests. It also serves as our military base should something happens to us that requires us to send our troops to the ME. The Arab countries won't let us land.
There are some serious issues here worth considering. Some ideas might be outdated and debunked. But some still holds true. Question is what next. Also is our national standing so impaired now that our presence of influence is ineffective anyway?
The geopolitical strategy on the military front still makes sense. It's also why we're having low level clashes with China in the South China Sea. It is to our military strategic advantages to have landing spaces everywhere for us. This is something the "pro-Palestine" morons don't get when they repeat "from river to the sea" like Stepford wives.
But of course our military can hardly launch another Normandy these days with their obesity problem plus the troops are needing safe spaces if someone misgender them.
Evans! My man! You gotta explain why you think we've been BANKROLLING Israel for the past 75 years!
I mean I have my theories..... but people may call me antisemetic, or even a conspiracy theorists, w/o even thinking critically. But all I'm doing is simply calling out things as I see it.
2. With what amounts (and what sources are you drawing on to come up with those amounts)?
3. What other countries has the U.S. bankrolled (or sent money to) over the same time period under that definition in #1 above?
4. With what amounts (and what sources are you drawing on to come up with those amounts)?
5. What percent of total aid to allies, to NATO, and to the U.N. over the last 75 years (#4 above) went to Israel?
6. Does Israel - given its geographic location, let alone its political and economic system - present any strategic value to the U.S.? Or to the rest of the world? If not, why not? What would the region look like without a strong Israel? Would Iran, for example, remain in isolation?
7. Which president and administration over the last 75 years took the position that the U.S. would play a role around the world as a supporter of democracy?
8. How would the U.S. economy have performed over the last 75 years if the U.S. had been an isolationist country?
9. Or, are you suggesting the U.S. could have made all the commitments it did over the last 75 years - except for having supported Israel?
10. What are the criteria you would use to decide what countries the U.S. supports and which ones the U.S. decides it shouldn’t support?
You seem to address the issue of aid to Israel in isolation and in a vacuum, as if there is no interrelatedness among the thousands of decisions that need to be made by leadership of a global power like the U.S. on the world stage, where countries form alliances and take stands with their allies both for and against other countries, other leadership, other political and economic styles (like theocracies, totalitarianism, and other forms of extremism which have tended to stunt or eliminate personal freedoms and human and economic growth.) And of course there’s energy and agricultural concerns on the part of every country that are taken into consideration. After all, mankind is wired to want to perpetuate itself. But back to the questions at hand, one last one: are decision of foreign policy so easy and simple to answer?
The State of Israel is a colony, put there by the economic and military powers: the US, UK, etc. It's no different than the colonization done by the Dutch, French, and many other countries through the centuries. Colonization often ends when those being colonized fight a revolution for independence. Kind of like we did against the British. Lucky for us the British didn't have a sugar-daddy back in the day, like Israel does now--us. Some colonization does a very thorough job of eradicating indigenous peoples, like here, Canada, Australia, and others. Looks like it may be happening now in Gaza. We and others in the West continue to support Israel to keep our colony going.
2. With what amounts (and what sources are you drawing on to come up with those amounts)?
3. What other countries has the U.S. bankrolled (or sent money to) over the same time period under that definition in #1 above?
4. With what amounts (and what sources are you drawing on to come up with those amounts)?
5. What percent of total aid to allies, to NATO, and to the U.N. over the last 75 years (#4 above) went to Israel?
6. Does Israel - given its geographic location, let alone its political and economic system - present any strategic value to the U.S.? Or to the rest of the world? If not, why not? What would the region look like without a strong Israel? Would Iran, for example, remain in isolation?
7. Which president and administration over the last 75 years took the position that the U.S. would play a role around the world as a supporter of democracy?
8. How would the U.S. economy have performed over the last 75 years if the U.S. had been an isolationist country?
9. Or, are you suggesting the U.S. could have made all the commitments it did over the last 75 years - except for having supported Israel?
10. What are the criteria you would use to decide what countries the U.S. supports and which ones the U.S. decides it shouldn’t support?
You seem to address the issue of aid to Israel in isolation and in a vacuum, as if there is no interrelatedness among the thousands of decisions that need to be made by leadership of a global power like the U.S. on the world stage, where countries form alliances and take stands with their allies both for and against other countries, other leadership, other political and economic styles (like theocracies, totalitarianism, and other forms of extremism which have tended to stunt or eliminate personal freedoms and human and economic growth.) And of course there’s energy and agricultural concerns on the part of every country that are taken into consideration. After all, mankind is wired to want to perpetuate itself. But back to the questions at hand, one last one: are decision of foreign policy so easy and simple to answer?
"and the way US has been going, it might bankrupt itself." -- Thank You! This guy gets it! It's almost as if we're just getting ourselves into more debt....But some will say, "we must do this!"
This is why we need to "Make Critically Thinking Great Again!"
As long as NATO exists, Europe will be important. You don't just dump your friends and leave them to fend for themselves against Russian aggression because Asia is the new shiny thing on the block. Allowing Ukraine to fall only puts NATO countries at greater risk of invasion. Russia's ultimate aim is to close the gaps that provide access into the flat, open expanses leading into the Russian heartland. That will require invading Poland, Romania and the Baltic states at the least. That is why those who just talk about Ukrainian corruption are myopic, and that's being kind. NATO knows Ukraine isn't some bastion of Western ideals and has serious issues. But they realize that if it falls, it will only put more countries at risk of an emboldened Russia.
There is a difference between "Helping your friends" and "helping a country that hasn't been a particularly great friend by giving them a blank check". Many of the people not cool with giving Ukraine money has to do with the lack of accountability for the money.
Except that in this case, helping the "not particularly great friend" just happens to help your friends. There is no perfect ally. We can't expect Russian aggression to take a time out until we work out all the kinks in accountability. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it something that should cause us to cease support? No.
Many Americans are make lots of MONEY when war heats up. - the military industrial complex, Raytheon, Mitre, Lockheed-Martin etc and all the Congressmen and women who own stock in these companies - and there are MANY....they are all grifting off the American taxpayer....
Putin is involved in the Oct 7 attack. He has colluded with Iran and contributed funding to Hamas, all to take US attention and aid from Ukraine. It's why he hosted a Hamas delegation recently, and why his people instigated the riot in Dagestan. He turned on Israel because Israel helped Ukraine.
Even if all of those things were true that would just be further evidence that it is imperative to keep these conflicts separate at all costs. Unless you want another Holocaust to happen for some weird reason…….
-An Israeli air strike hit Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza, killing a senior Hamas commander as well as Palestinian civilians.
-FBI Director Christopher A. Wray warned senators that the Israel-Hamas war has increased the chances of a terrorist attack against Americans in the United States to “a whole other level.”
-TRUMP’S RHETORIC WAS INFLAMMATORY!!
-Israel vanished overnight from maps on the Chinese search engine Baidu.
-Egyptian prime minister Mostafa Madbouly said Egypt was “prepared to sacrifice millions of lives
Reading this has made me ponder the issue of Colonization. Colonization was bad for sure and inflicted pain and suffering on others. Not questioning that. Although, I can tell you, it's been quite a long time since the US colonized anyone. Yet we are still blamed for history.
However, I think we have a new form of colonization that no one wants to discuss or admit too. That is the shear out of control illegal immigration across the globe from Europe to our shores. This colonization is the same as the earlier form of colonization. People coming in and demanding changes to suit their values and life styles from those already living there. Illegals demand free living and special privileges that the locals must pay for and change their lives to accommodate the illegals.
So in essence, colonization still exists, it's now called illegal immigration!
The problem is that working middle class families have to think so carefully about every life decision - if they have a second child can they afford daycare or
Saving for college for them or other expenses. If you come here illegally you don’t have to worry because all of those expenses are paid for by the working middle class people. If all those expenses are paid for (for example where I live if you come here illegally you go to college free whereas if you are a working tax-paying citizen you have to work really hard to try to save that money to help your own kids or to pay back loans which you had to take out). It is harder for American citizens to be able to afford housing or kids because they have to pay for those choices
One thing that is absolutely clear to me is that the second-half-of-the-20th-century decolonizing project has failed. With just a few exceptions, like India, all of the former European colonies are now basket cases.
Whether colonization was bad or not rather depended upon who the colonizer was, does it not? I can only think of two British colonies in which The People were not better off under British rule. (Hint: We're one of them. And I don't count India because of the oceans of blood that ensued.) No one with the misfortune of Belgium has ever recovered; French somewhere in between.
Call me a contrarian, but… colonization brought very real benefits to the colonized along with violence and strife. Like so many things in life, it is a two sided coin.
Unlike tribal warfare (where one tribe took territory and merely substituted their leaders/culture for the existing system), colonization brought with it new levels of development in technology, medicine, the written word, physical infrastructure, etc. well beyond what the indigenous peoples had developed. And when the colonists eventually left, those benefits largely remained (to the extent the colonized could maintain).
Whether or not these benefits are enough to balance out the drawbacks, I cannot say, but they exist and should be acknowledged in the analysis.
They call them.Bloody Brits for a reason CJ. What they did to Ireland and India was horrific. The only reason they did not lower the boom.on the US colonies was because they were stretched too thin. Which ought to be a lesson to current whatever this is passing for leadership in the US.
True, particularly re: Ireland. India... I tried to acknowledge the ambiguity. Not sure that the unpleasantness leading to the partition was an improvement over the death throes of empire. And the Irish have also done bit of fratricide ("religiously" motivated) since independence.
I wish that was the only lesson that the current occupants need.
I think that my mind was fogged with the African experience. And Andy Carnegie built a boatload of libraries too. People judging historic events by modern standards make me crazy, I guess.
The ultimate in colonization was begun by Muslims in the 7th century, then the Europeans in "The Age of Discovery", and finally, by the Brits and French after WW I as they carved up the Middle East into unsustainable borders, WITHOUT considering culture or tribal associations!
When people talk about Colonization, what they really mean is power. If they really cared about people being in countries that are not their own, most of them would be moving back to Europe or Africa to give this place back to the Indians. But no one is doing that. They use the word to mean "Someone with power that I don't think they should have and thus I am ok with someone taking it from them" all the while never including themselves in that vendiagram
During the BLM riots Starbucks was encouraging baristas to have a conversation with customers about race. Today I’m going to attempt to chat with the barista about decolonization. I await enlightenment .
Watch the latest South Park. One of the plotlines is about how AI is taking jobs away from all of the supposedly educated and only the handymen know how to do anything, so they are all becoming rich.
Just when you think "wokeness" was on the decline, along comes something like this...written of course by a puffy White woman who doesn't want you to realize that she's thoroughly enjoying the benefits of the society she's railing against - and probably sucking down pumpkin spice lattes while she's doing it.
Sarah Wassberg Johnson, the "Food Historian" mentioned in the article. And any member of Western society I see jumping on the "colonizer/anti-colonizer bandwagon I interpret as "railing against" Western Society. The moral grandstanding is nauseating.
I guess I get that many of you don’t have the same skin in the game, but the US should absolutely support Israel and be on the right side of history. I’m sure no one’s forgotten, there was a barbaric genocide less than a month ago. Israel is in the untenable position of trying to address this with the world watching and judging and Hamas being masters of public relations, with their human shields and all. Israel is asking for just what it needs for this mission, and the situation is dire. Also, Blinken should not be asking Israel to use restraint, as he would never ask another country to do in similar circumstances. Plus, we have former American President Obama to blame in large part, since his love affair with Iran, and subsequent policy, had much to do with this happening.
Obama had a little something to do with Ukraine too. Not to conflate the two. But related is the fact that infiltration of the executive branch alphabet agencies was initiated on his watch in the name of diversity. We now have full blown supporters of terrorism in decision making positions. This may be more significant than anything else he, and Biden, have done.
Anyone who voted for Obama or Biden, and thus supported their (and Kerry/Blinken/Sullivan's) "love affair with Iran," has Israeli blood on his hands. I didn't. Did you, Nina?
I would request that every hyphenated-American carrying on about "colonization" please hand their house keys to the nearest Native American and commit seppuku or shut up about it right now. The hypocrisy is over the top. Can guarantee that if the Natives went "native" and took out Martha's Vineyard, there would be a completely different leftist narrative.
Because they’re FOS and too busy sipping their pumpkin spice lattes while pontificating to other shallow consumers about the scourge of colonialism or whiteness or whatever else flitters into their dim consciousness that day. They will never, ever make a personal sacrifice for any reason.
I'm reminded of an old Dennis Leary skit: "You've got women driving on LA freeways, rushing to their manicure appointments in air conditioned SUVs, drinking water that costs more per gallon than the gasoline, talking on their cell phones to friends 1000 miles away and complaining about how hard it is to live in America."
Decadence. I think I liked the self-absorbed 1990's version more than the other-obsessed, self-loathing 2020's version.
"Mitch McConnell prefers a package that handles Ukraine, Israel, border security, and Taiwan all in one."
Of course he does. Because borrowing money and giving it away is just way too much fun to worry about specifics.
"Egypt was 'prepared to sacrifice millions of lives to ensure that no one encroaches upon our territory' dismissing requests for the settlement of Palestinian refugees in Egypt."
I thought border enforcement was oppressive and racist. Liberals get really mad when we try to enforce our borders, when Hungary and Poland enforce theirs, when the UK does. But they don't say anything when China or Japan or Mexico or Egypt enforce their borders. It must be another one of those "white privilege" things. That's why I can't understand it -- I'm white.
J.D. Vance, over the weekend, talked about how we need to start making priorities. The government deficit is growing in exceptional revenue times for the economy. Taxes can't keep up. The media and Democrats, and Senate Republicans like to think of everything as a silo. It's urgent so we must spend on it. But there is not only a finite amount of money, and the government has to start making priorities. To do this, the path laid out by Speaker Johnson will be interesting to see how it plays out. Since Most of our "growth" was driven by deficit spending, this economic expansion will go as far as the spending will last. And with our enemies flooding the zone with conflict and working to create an alternative currency, we better start getting serious people into office who can think and communicate. as the next four years are going to be full of challenges. Sadly, neither Trump nor Biden will measure to the moment. One last point: when will the media speak about SBF and using his fake money to fund Democrats? I must have missed that.
Why the eff is some loathsome carcass like Mitch McConnell still the republican’s leader in the Senate? Do they have zero concern for credibility or effectiveness?
How did you change the voters when Trump has the highest percentage? They screwed Trump from the very beginning and the American people saw right through this. Maybe if Trump gets elected and cleans out all the corrupt people we can get back to business?
Who is They? How is he going to do this? Will he wear an orange cape to save the day? He still have to pass laws, hire good people and actually stay focused on the task at hand. Your hero worship is noted but its in a fanatasy world not based in reality.
Tell me why the polls show him at 46%? Not a hero worship. If he did a lousy job why were they after him with fake stuff. For someone who was not a politician, I think he did pretty good for an amateur. He did better than what we have now.
Please, please, please quit bringing Trump into every comment. You have a perfectly valid point here, as you often do, but the Trump/Biden comment was gratuitous. Regarding McConnell in case you have not seen this already I think it tells one everything he or she needs to know about him:
My comment was about the choices meeting the moment - I just don't think Trump or Biden are the men to meet the moment. I will check out your link on McConnell, I will work on keeping my Trump comments under 50% of my posts going forward :)
To be clear I am not exclusively pro-Trump but I do not care for those who see people he brought into the fold as ill-informed, or as irretrievably linked to him. He brought a lot of people out to vote who had felt sidelined I think. Those people will exist regardless of what happens with Trump's campaign. It is extremely short sighted IMO for "mainstream" Republicans, like McConnell, to ignore them. I despise elitists. Whether Republican or Democrat. I think the Democrat party is beyond redemption and the jury is out on the Republican party. I am on team Johnson, Team Hawley and Team every other Republican named in McConnell's threat.
If we had settled the Ukraine conflict (instead of pouring gas on it) a year or more ago we would have one less “iron in the fire”. We should be a force for peace and stability, not war and carnage.
It wasn't up to the US to settled the Ukraine conflict. The most the US could do would be to make suggestions, or refuse to aid Ukraine and let Russia take over the country.
That is true but it is my understanding that the US has discouraged all attempts at negotiated peace in Ukraine and coupled that with promises of bottomless support. Which begs the question, why? Who profits from this?
Who profits? Arms manufacturers and the politicians who take money from them to promote their products. The people who buy the arms and resell them. The transportation companies who transport the arms. And on and on and on it goes. Do you want to become wealthy? Invest in war.
Precisely. I want to.protect my soul more than I want that kind of wealth. Of course the influence of most individual investors is negligible at this point.
That's true. unless you're in the Warren Buffet class of investor, you don't make a dent or even ruffle a feather. Wealth is fleeting, you're soul is forever.
This is disingenuous to say the least. In Mar, 2022, we told Ukraine, "We have your back 100%! Go kill those Russians." We could have instead told them, "We support your independence, but we have no treaty with you, and we're not getting involved in a shooting war on Russia's front porch." This was exactly what we said to Armenia, no Yemen, to Sudan. That would have foreclosed most of Zelensky's more violent resistance options.
Even better, we could have said that in 2008 (instead of saying "Ukraine will be a part of Nato"). We could have said that in 2014 (instead of saying "Russia must leave Crimea").
Most of the countries in the world are effectively run by their neighbors. It wouldn't matter a hill of beans to us if Ukraine was too. The same can not be said of Israel. If Israel were "run by its neighbors", 9M Jews would be dead tomorrow.
Your claim that it's "not up to the US to settle the Ukraine conflict" is disingenuous because that's exactly what we've been doing for a year and a half. We have a settlement we favor: Russia goes home and gives up everything. That happens to be what Ukraine wants too, but that's not why we're pushing it, as many members of the foreign policy blob we quite honest about last year as they pontificated on "regime change in Russia".
My point isn't that said settlement is bad. I would love to see that happen. But I don't see why drawing down our own military stockpiles, taking on more debt, and depleting our strategic petroleum reserve (making ourselves significantly weaker while a peer competitor is rising in Asia) is worth it. Ukraine has made it clear that Russia is a 2-bit regional power now, and what happens on their front porch just doesn't matter that much to us.
To clarify my second point, the vast majority of nations in the world are surrounded by peer or stronger competitors who routinely "meddle" in their weaker neighbors affairs. The Indians do it (ask Bangladesh). The Iranians do it (as Iraq). The Russians do it (ask Belarus or Georgia). The Chinese do it (ask most of Asia). The Burmese do it (as Bangladesh). The Saudis do it (ask Yemen). The US does it (ask anyone). And don't even get me started on Africa.
It's not up to us to settle, and Putin is NOT going to fold and give up what he's fighting for. He's winning this war and he's prepared for a long battle.
The only leverage we have is overwhelming force with US troops involved and that's a non-starter. The NATO is not going to step in, they don't want to sacrifice human lives. Ideally, NATO would declare war on Russia and bomb them into oblivion. Or, better yet, don't declare anything, just do it, and at Christmas sing Underneath the Missle Toe.
I emphatically reject the teaching of hated and violence towards Jews.. However, progressive liberal Jews have never spoken out as Women studies have preached hatred towards men, Black studies towards whites and Queer studies against hetero-normative people. I hope they & others will speak out now. The time has come to reform these academic snake pits of hated by holding back financial gifts. They are poisoning our children's minds. We must stop it now!
There's never been a better time to lean into isolationist policies than right right now. Unfortunately we have a f*cking retard and a posse of criminals running the country as we speak.
We do know. Thanks to Musk, actually. It is the career bureaucrats in the executive branch alphabet agencies. Read Pompeo's Never Give an Inch for further info.
As a Democrat who has been left homeless, who is now definitely in the center but probably leaning increasingly right, I am left yet again with an appreciation, despite the messenger, of the message of the Trump administration because what those guys did was pretty incredible in hindsight.”
BW had written the following - including this in discussion would have added a great more clarity Is it just too painful? The same happened awhile ago in an interview w Ayaan Hursi Ali.
“So much of the work that happened in that [Trump] administration turns out to have been right. And that’s what is so frustrating for me. The work on the border wall? We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. Turned out it was right. Issuing long-term debt to refinance when rates were at zero? We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. A structural peace in the Middle East? We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message.”
“When are we gonna stop shooting ourselves in the foot? And when are we going to actually see and take the time to look past who is saying things and actually listen to them word for word?”
"And when are we going to actually see and take time to look past who is saying things and actually listen to them word for word?" When you can separate substance from appearance. Which means thinking carefully about what you see and hear. Odd that the quoted piece does not mention the thought process at all.
Was there some ground rule NO MENTION OF WHAT TRUMP GOT RIGHT? This TDS obfuscates what was glaringly correct direction re border, JCPOA, UNWRA, Taylor Force Act, taking out Suleimani, Iranian sanctions which Biden lifted now Iran awash in BILLIONS.
To be fair, there are murals of Sulemani being used to rally Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon today, so whether that one was a positive is still up in the air. The rest, I largely agree with you on. And yes, TDS prevents liberals from acknowledging this even while they veer their own policies in the same direction.
Wait. I thought Trump was definitely, most assuredly 💯 going to get into a world war. I mean that’s what every major media outlet, Paul Krugman phony wannabe told me repeatedly for 4 years.
The really sad part about reality hitting liberals in the face is... WE all suffer along the way.
Why does everything have to revolve around Trump? He was mediocre at best as President. He passed Tax Reform and Criminal Justice Reform. (How is that turning out, by the way) Trump lovers are just as bad as the Woke as you live in an alternative universe. Trump was a horrible manager and judge of people; he is thin-skinned and has no agenda to match the moment. The only person who can keep this idiot Biden in office is Trump, as he won't be able to make the election about Biden as he will fall into every trap laid for him.
Because EVERYTHING Democrats accused him of things he would cause and do he didn’t do and Biden and Democrats HAVE done since Biden took office.
And they need to be reminded at amy opportunity because like children they need to learn the lesson.
They need to learn the lesson so they will never attempt to pull that bullshit again on another President.
Democrats have very short memories. I don’t.
I think both you and JJosh are correct. People are replying like it has to be one way or the other. The Ds definitely did paint Trump as the one to bring about WW3, but turns out he's a peacenik and we're on verge of a world war now. But I agree with you Trump in the White House won't solve any problem. He gives voice to the discontent and through him they finally got their voices heard and gain back some feeling of control. He's even right on some policy positions. But he's a lousy executor. Plus his huge ego and narcissism is what drives him, so everything he does is about him. During his last term his administration management was total chaos for 4 years. He handling of Covid was chaotic and he politicized a pandemic to score political points. I'm not seeing him getting us out of all the crisis going on. But between him and Biden, sadly Biden has proven to be way worse and dangerous. Plus the Woke stranglehold has to be broken.
I'm really frustrated that these are the two candidates we're stuck with. I don't feel democratically represented. The two parties system is dysfunctional.
You hate Trump. So do a lot of people, but don't try to claim the world is a better place now with Biden in the WH.
Don't try to claim the world or your neighborhood is safer.
Or the economy is better.
Or the border is closed.
Or Biden is honest
Think you're replying to the wrong person? Because I specifically said the world is dangerous an d worse under Biden.
The World is a better place now that Trump is out. And the economy is much better. There.
The world is a better place?
How about you ask the hostages taken in Gaza?
Or their families seeing they're probably executed.
Want to discuss Ukraine? Or Biden's 37% approval? Or 300 fentanyl deaths/day?
How about known terrorists walking across the border bringing explosive devices?
The economy is much better? Have you looked at your property taxes? Insurance premiums? Or are you too busy tracking down the junkie who carjacked you?
You're right--they both suck. I don't necessarily need a President looking to solve problems, because even if they're right, they'll be opposed and nothing will change. I would like, however, a President who doesn't CAUSE problems. Trump caused a lot of problems in the minds of CNN and Rachel Maddow, but many of them (start with the Russia hoax and go from there) were only in the minds of corporate media. Plus, he didn't start any wars.
President Obama expanded illegal surveillance of Americans, after Candidate Obama said he would cease it immediately. Obama took drone killing to the next level. And now Biden is building the wall on the border in a tremendous moment of hypocrisy. Oh yeah, and he has expanded and fueled a war that didn't need fueling in Ukraine. And he is not only not offering a counterweight to Bibi's bloodlust, he's offering all the weapons and dollars necessary to massacre thousands.
I think Trump is a putrid example of a human, but he wasn't the worst President ever (that was Bush 2), and I'm not sure he won't be back, given Biden's lack of appeal to voters.
“I would like, however, a President who doesn't CAUSE problems.” Can’t lower the bar further than that lol. But I have the same feeling. Plus, they are both at such an advanced age, we need to pay more attention to the VP than we usually do. What if one of them (the elected one) kicks the bucket? Reminds me of the Soviet era when we had to listen to the Swan Lake on the radio continuously as one aged leader followed another one into afterlife: Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko. There were many jokes about that succession told around kitchen tables. I thought it could never happen in the US.
No argument from me. I can say a lot of things critical about Trump but they end up all being about his bad behaviors and buffoonery. In retrospect he's actually far from being as bad as Bush II, Obama, and definitely definitely better than Biden.
Others might argue Obama was a better president but for me, absolutely not. He ruined everything I cared about.
Obama's biggest issue was that he wasted--WASTED--a massive amount of popularity and momentum, only to turn to the usual neocon, now neoliberal nonsense about wars and "security." the delta between what he could have done and what he did is greater than any President I can think of.
My exact thoughts (except I don’t actually believe that Biden will be the Dem candidate). It is embarrassing and humiliating that our politicians are generally of such low quality. I tend to think that it is a direct consequence of our abysmal education system and pathologically biased media.
Well the real story is not yet written as to the 2024 election just what the press hyperventilates about. So keep your powder dry.
Yep. It's only November of the year before and the two "leading candidates" are in their 80s. This race hasn't even begun, because voters don't generally start paying attention until a few months before Election Day. It could be Lynne and Gericke on the ticket, for God's sake . . .
We could straighten this crap out. Have you heard about Hawley's bill to clamp down on corporate campaign donations? To which I say, please Lord. It would do away with a lot of the political commercials. McConnell is opposed and threatening "reprisals" for all Republicans supporting it. Which confirms my suspicions of McConnell. But supposedly there is Democrat support too.
Yeah … Michael Thomas Aquinas Prince for president.
You're being generous with "short".
Spellcheck changed it from “shit”.
ALL politicians are thin-skinned narcissists and horrible managers of people. Ask those who have worked for Sheila Jackson Lee and Amy Klobuchar. Biden is Ron Burgundy at this point. Complaining about Trump's management skills is like saying water is wet.
Not All, there are effective governors all over the country. My point is that the when the wheels come off, we are going to need an A+ leader. Trump is a D+. Biden is a F. God forbid Harris who would be n F minus. I think DeSantis would be a B+. That is why I am voting for him.
He renegotiated the trade deals he said he would. His attitude and tax cuts got us out of the eight year Obama slump. He fostered peace everywhere.
DeSantis is not a bad guy, but I don't see him taking on Permanent Washington. You do understand, right, that the FBI is openly corrupt?
Problem with Trump is that he won’t get the democrat voters who are sick of democrat politicians and policies. I believe there are plenty now after seeing what’s happened in the past few years. But they’d rather continue to vote for this crap than to give in and vote for Trump. The outcome of election could be the end of America, and I can’t handle the chance of this happening.
They can vote for RFK, Jr.
Thank you for stating my point better than me.
"The eight-year Obama slump?" His first two years were slumpy due to the aftershock of the 2nd Great Depression. (It was NOT a recession, in my view, it was a short but vicious Depression.) Then the economy roared for his next six years. Trump inherited the roar and kept it going.
Presidents really don't deserve credit OR blame for the economy--they simply don't have the power to change a multi-trllion-dollar behemoth on a dime, even over four years--but that's politics.
I'm not entirely sure where you were living, but I was living in America, and things started improving the moment Trump took office, and started improving rapidly once we got our corporate tax rates more in line with the rates in every other industrialized nation in the world.
Obama presided over the second worst economic recovery in American history, for the simple reason that business owners didn't trust him. I spoke to them. That is simple fact. They didn't trust FDR either, and most thought he was trying to impose a Fascist system on them, because he WAS. Only the so-called Four Horsemen on the Supreme Court prevented literal Fascism from being enacted here.
I am slowly realizing that for discussion to have any purpose, I need to be dealing with serious people. It's not enough for me to be right, or to be able to articulate my views at length (this is very, very short by my standards). I need to be interacting with people capable of learning, and I don't think most people on this or other websites actually are capable of learning.
If you don't think Obama's policies created a lot of problems, I don't think you are interested in learning either, although you may be capable of it. One of my favorite restaurants in town closed directly because of his policies. The owner cited them.
Biden/Obama is not even REMOTELY equal to Trump. Not in the same league. There were good reasons the crooks running this country worked so hard to kneecap Trump. And if he were anyone else they would have succeeded. They still may succeed, but unless you hate your children and those of others, this is not something to be wished for.
Trump's tax cuts were good if you are a giant corporation or in the upper 0.1%. For every nickel saved by a normal person, a corporation kept from paying $100 in taxes. There are no good tax cuts for rich people and corporations, most of whom/which don't pay their fair share now.
I think it would have been more honest for you to have said “I dont really understand economics but I’m not going to let it keep me from sharing my opinion.”
Paul Krugman got a Nobel Prize. Maybe you can get one too. Merit is no longer even relevant, much less necessary.
Maybe that would be a nice fantasy to indulge the next time you spark up.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the number one priority of every politician is getting elected, and staying in office. Everything else is secondary. It's incredible that George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms. Consider Dianne Feinstein. Or Mitch McConnell. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Joe Biden. Or Jesse Helms. Or...
The reason Governors seem more effective is that most if not all of them are term-limited, and looking to burnish resumes for higher office. Glenn Youngkin and Ron DeSantis look like the apples of your eye right now, but if they have to run nationally, they will moderate their positions, and make sure that they maintain a certain level of milquetoast policy in order to make huge royalties on their memoirs and upcoming NetFlix or Spotify some such production deal after being Term Limited from being POTUS after 2 terms.
I agree with you. The Federal government is a big mess with promises we can't possitbly follow up on as the people you mentioned spent in the moment leaving the problems long after they are dead. All I am saying is Trump does not have the skill set to be a good President. He proved that during his first term and I am not axious to see a second one. Desantis and Youngkin might be bad, but I know tht Trump wasn't any good. Thanks for sharing your thougths.
I disagree with your opinion of Trump's skill set.
Remember, Democrats wanted to impeach him BEFORE he took the oath of office.
He had 3 years of a phony Robert Mueller investigation to battle.
Democrats had ZERO interest in working with him.
I prefer DeSantis, but Trump with his 4 years of experience could wind up getting more done than we can imagine.
Nicely and succinctly stated, x.
De Santis would be amazing, relative to all the other nominees on both sides. If we had a choice between Kennedy and De Santis, it would be such a refreshing change to suddenly have a difficult choice in a presidential election and to live in a democracy that doesn’t seem to be on the verge of having all its wheels fall off. But inevitably we will have a choice between Biden and Trump. So the question we need to be asking is if life was better during the last three years or during the prior four years. Despite Trump’s many flaws, the country managed to flourish in relative terms during his tenure, and to turn into a dystopian nightmare during Biden’s term. We ought to keep that in mind in the voting booth.
I will vote for Trump over Biden, I just want a better choice than Trump.
I agree. Trump over Biden any day, but Trump is probably the worst of the Republican candidates (maybe better than Christie).
There is no doubt that things were better, over all, prior to the Covid/Floyd era as opposed to now.
For me, the worry of a Trump second term is that his faults make him less likely, to be able to right our sinking ship. When he took office in 2016, while there was deep political rot, things —on the surface —appeared to be OK. But these are extraordinary times, which require extraordinary men. In my view, Trump is not up to the task.
(Edited for stupid commas that Apple voice dictation inserts inappropriately. Grrrr.)
I've known 500 politicians personally, from precinct committeeman to a US Senator. Only maybe 20 are entitled to respect and those are judges.
As much of an incompetent, self-serving, and mendacious clown Trump was as president, he oversaw (I won't say passed!) things like the Abraham Accords (the FIRST glimmer of hope in the Mid-East), and nominated three conservative Justices to the Supreme Court, although it was Mitch McConnel who guided those choices through nomination and confirmation. Trump did very little, himself. On the OTHER hand, Biden has overseen the greatest increase in world-wide violence and instability in generations, and drove the country to high inflation and a possible recession with his approval of a massive, and phony, Inflation Reduction Act! So, who is worse, the mendacious and undisciplined clown, or the doddering old fool who has been on the wrong side in every foreign policy matter for 50 years?
I will vote for Trump for a third time over Biden but I really think a good GOP canidate can crush Biden and have coattails to pass an agenda. Trump is so toxic to so many that people will vote against him rather for Biden. I want to focus on Biden not Trump. I want a big win , not a soap opera for another four years.
I despise McConnell. He may have guided those things through the Senate but only because Trump gave him the opportunity to do so. He did done nothing on his own. He is now leading g one side of the Republican party split. He fired a salvo against Hawley and those of like mind yesterday. He is the Senate Pelosi.
A big part of Trump's agenda was to keep us out of foreign wars. He succeeded. The Left crucified him for it. Biden's ego-driven debacle in Afghanistan gave Russia, Iran, China, Europe, and every country in the Middle East the measure of this dangerous, deceitful, dunce of a president. God help us.
You're a lot more effective when the TDS doesn't rule you. Just sayin'.
I don't have TDS, I think Trump is better than Biden but think the GOP can do better than Trump. I voted for him twice but think there are better people out there to meet the moment.
Well then who would fight the Deep State better than Trump? He knows now who all the players are.
I'm afraid that, now the Democrats have shown him the way, Trump in his second term will not fight the Deep State but will use it for revenge against those who are persecuting him. We need someone focused on saving the country more than personal vendettas.
But you need a good team to fight the Deep state and dicpline. Trump has not and good people won't work for a guy who wants people kissing his ass. So what chance does he have?
I think you just hit the nail on the head. Trumps biggest issue is that he will not be king. He can't will things into existence. He needs people to help him do things, and his list of allies grows thin.
Biden can be literally brain dead and still get things done because he has an entire party working in lockstep. Trump alienates both Dems, Independents, and some Reps.
A ham sandwich would be better than Mr Biden. I won't ask who would be better than Mr Trump. I'll stipulate Mr Desantis looks ok on paper but he shows no sign of being electable and he hasn't got the cushion that FYou money provides. Otherwise; swamp.
Albert Loveland
Trump was a very good President. Yes, he made some bad appointments but other than his promotion of a rushed, experimental ineffective vaccine that is somewhat dangerous which of his polices were mediocre? Be specific.
He failed to replace Obamacare. He lost Congress and spent like a Democrat. He didn't tackle the major issues of Entitlement Spending. He did pick three great Justicies and his Remain in Mexico policy was good. But he was horrible with Covid. So I give him a solid C. But we need an A team to get us out of this mess. He can't attract good people as good people don't want to work for a boss who wants his ass kissed all the time.
His polling is quite good, and the FACT is that peace was the result everywhere during his tenure, including the Abraham Accords, for which he was nominated for two Nobel Peace Prizes, and the meeting of the Korean leaders for the first time since the shooting stopped.
You are pushing nonsense. Why? Yes, he was backstabbed by pretty much everyone around him, but is that his fault? He stepped into a den of vipers and the vipers bit him. Is that an argument not to give him a second chance, this time knowing what he is facing? On the contrary: he's the ONLY smart choice at this point.
I can see he is your Hero but that does not explain away his inablity to have self dicipline and have a good team to get this done. You sould like woke white woman living in fantasy land rather than facing the hard truths. He is simply not the man for the moment. He is better than Biden but then again outside of Harris, who isn't?
I fear you didn't read my reply. Please do so, and if you have anything intelligent to say, I will be happy to respond.
Jimmy Carter had Camp David. Trump was OK,but he did things that any generic GOP canidate could have not. He is not as special as you make him out to be. You still can't tell me how and since more than 50% of the country despises him, how does he win? Have a good day!
He won the last election. Why would he not win again, now that the patent corruption and hatred of America that animate and fuel both Biden and the Democrats generally are undeniable?
Hes no saint, but nearly every negative story people tell about him is an ignorant or bald faced lie, and obviously so.
Much of what you say, Albert, I agree with. When comparing Trump's 4 years with Biden's 3 we have:
- disastrous border policy: illegal aliens/terrorists which you are paying for,
- economic troubles on Main AND Wall,
- war on multiple fronts and WWIII in the cards,
- history repeating itself with holocaust 2 on the horizon, and finally,
- evil unabashedly raising its head at home and abroad and funded by you.
What does it say that as shitty as Trump was, the world was a better place with him at the helm?
No sensible person paid any attention to Krugman.
I'm not sure what turned the Nobel Committee into a farce for me, but it was either awarding one to Krugman or Obama. Arafat was borderline too, but at least there was something seemingly meaningful there.
His commenting during Trump first campaign and after were truly laughable.
All shooting conflicts: 66% with D leadership and that's putting the RINO's Bush 1 and 2 in the R column.
For the past 85 years, there's only been 1 column. Just sayin....
What about 2016-2020?
Democrats are war hawks
Are we in a world war?
“The coming Ukraine-Israel spending fight: A fight on Capitol Hill over military spending for Israel and Ukraine has been brewing for weeks.”
———————————————-
I still cannot get over the extreme stupidity of connecting these two conflicts and messaging to Putin that he’s up against The Jews.
Only people who went to Harvard and then moved on to the State Department could come up with something this irresponsible and psychotic.
I find it crazy that US Tax-payer is funding any of these conflicts. Israel is rich country with debt to GDP of 60%. While we are at 120%. Ukraine is one of most corrupt countries in the world with no resources and little strategic meaning.
As Israeli, I would be more happy for US to keep its money and start bringing its finances in order. Israel needs strong ally in long run, and the way US has been going, it might bankrupt itself. And this help that is discussed in congress, is just another giveaway to military industrial complex,
I’m sure the money is going to NGOs that will launder it back to Democrats. It’s amazing how much of the debt is from Democrats buying votes with welfare and laundering money back to their campaigns. It would actually be much cheaper if we just passed a law that allowed them to buy votes directly.
They are already buying votes openly and directly. In the last election I received a text from a Dem PAC (Progressive Turnout Project) offering me $250/week to “rally your friends and family to vote” (and you know which side they wanted me to rally them for!). They WRONGLY believed that I was a Democrat; in reality I have ALWAYS been a registered Independent.
Does the USA have any money left for the security of its citizens? Over 200 illegals on the terror watch list entering from our open borders and we can’t get an answer from Mayorkis on where they are. The day that man is no longer in a position of such power cannot come soon enough. He has been a complete failure (but a success in his eyes as this is everything he wanted to accomplish). We have a tiny percentage of money going to the southern border compared to the pile of billions going to Ukraine and now Israel. Insanity is an understatement.
The short answer is no. We need a Reagan-level military buildup -- but we can't fund it. 85% of the federal budget is consumed by the combination of two things: entitlement programs, and interest on the federal debt. Every single other thing that the federal government does comes out of the other 15%. Entitlement programs have eaten our lunch and dinner too. We can't touch them; there is no political will to, and even if there was, entitlement recipients will hold our cities hostage with threats of riots and revolts. Stick a fork in America. It's done. The world is about to enter a second Dark Age.
If we already spend more on military than the next 10 countries combined, where is there to go? Spend 5x the entire rest of the world? To what end? We're already hated because of the way we throw our military around; do you want that to get worse?
The largest groups of recipients of what you call entitlement programs are old people, with Social Security and Medicare. Your "hold our cities hostage" nonsense is a dog-whistle about all the "urban" welfare recipients. Go to rural areas in the flyover states to find your recipients--they are nice retirees who worked hard and deserve their Social Security and Medicare.
The Pentagon, DHS, CIA, FBI, etc. don't need more money.
This is a really depressing thought I’m going to try not to think about.
I’ll make you even more depressed! On Biden’s first day, he signed an executive order that required Every. Single. Government. Department to oversee itself for DEI. So, we have the basic inefficiencies of government, now compounded by “drunken sailor spending” on anti-meritocracy programs to make itself even more inefficient and costly. It’s sort of an “entitlement program” built into every aspect of government. Woo-hoo!
Think about it. Get prepared.
Come on Linda. That's not actually happening. My left leaning friends remind me of this on the regular.
They’re gentler than one of my relatives, who pays - uh, donates - to be on a weekly conference call with our own senator from Massachusetts, “Lie-a-wat ha”. He calls me an ignorant, stupid liar. I know otherwise.
You think they are concerned about the security of their citizens?
I've questioned why we've bankrolled Israel's military & economy for the past 75 years many many times. I understand the need to do this immediately following WWII but why would this happen for almost 8 decades now? Why would any of this funding be a gift rather than a loan? The question is rhetorical as I think most know the answers.
The reason, or argument if you prefer, is geopolitical influence. Israel is the only country in the ME that is democratic and West friendly. During the Cold War the dominant policy was to exert our sphere of influence. Also balance of power. Israel technically serves as our satellite in the ME to maintain our presence and influence in the oil rich region, and our veiled threat against the surrounding ME countries going crazy doing anything against our interests. It also serves as our military base should something happens to us that requires us to send our troops to the ME. The Arab countries won't let us land.
There are some serious issues here worth considering. Some ideas might be outdated and debunked. But some still holds true. Question is what next. Also is our national standing so impaired now that our presence of influence is ineffective anyway?
The geopolitical strategy on the military front still makes sense. It's also why we're having low level clashes with China in the South China Sea. It is to our military strategic advantages to have landing spaces everywhere for us. This is something the "pro-Palestine" morons don't get when they repeat "from river to the sea" like Stepford wives.
But of course our military can hardly launch another Normandy these days with their obesity problem plus the troops are needing safe spaces if someone misgender them.
Evans! My man! You gotta explain why you think we've been BANKROLLING Israel for the past 75 years!
I mean I have my theories..... but people may call me antisemetic, or even a conspiracy theorists, w/o even thinking critically. But all I'm doing is simply calling out things as I see it.
While you’re at it...
1. What is your definition of “bankroll”?
2. With what amounts (and what sources are you drawing on to come up with those amounts)?
3. What other countries has the U.S. bankrolled (or sent money to) over the same time period under that definition in #1 above?
4. With what amounts (and what sources are you drawing on to come up with those amounts)?
5. What percent of total aid to allies, to NATO, and to the U.N. over the last 75 years (#4 above) went to Israel?
6. Does Israel - given its geographic location, let alone its political and economic system - present any strategic value to the U.S.? Or to the rest of the world? If not, why not? What would the region look like without a strong Israel? Would Iran, for example, remain in isolation?
7. Which president and administration over the last 75 years took the position that the U.S. would play a role around the world as a supporter of democracy?
8. How would the U.S. economy have performed over the last 75 years if the U.S. had been an isolationist country?
9. Or, are you suggesting the U.S. could have made all the commitments it did over the last 75 years - except for having supported Israel?
10. What are the criteria you would use to decide what countries the U.S. supports and which ones the U.S. decides it shouldn’t support?
You seem to address the issue of aid to Israel in isolation and in a vacuum, as if there is no interrelatedness among the thousands of decisions that need to be made by leadership of a global power like the U.S. on the world stage, where countries form alliances and take stands with their allies both for and against other countries, other leadership, other political and economic styles (like theocracies, totalitarianism, and other forms of extremism which have tended to stunt or eliminate personal freedoms and human and economic growth.) And of course there’s energy and agricultural concerns on the part of every country that are taken into consideration. After all, mankind is wired to want to perpetuate itself. But back to the questions at hand, one last one: are decision of foreign policy so easy and simple to answer?
I can’t imagine anyone thinking you either.
The State of Israel is a colony, put there by the economic and military powers: the US, UK, etc. It's no different than the colonization done by the Dutch, French, and many other countries through the centuries. Colonization often ends when those being colonized fight a revolution for independence. Kind of like we did against the British. Lucky for us the British didn't have a sugar-daddy back in the day, like Israel does now--us. Some colonization does a very thorough job of eradicating indigenous peoples, like here, Canada, Australia, and others. Looks like it may be happening now in Gaza. We and others in the West continue to support Israel to keep our colony going.
Why do we have presence in Germany, Japan, and South Korea?
If someone with any smarts or presence was in the WH, we would have stayed in Afghanistan to keep some attempt at peace which we paid dearly for.
While you’re at it...
1. What is your definition of “bankroll”?
2. With what amounts (and what sources are you drawing on to come up with those amounts)?
3. What other countries has the U.S. bankrolled (or sent money to) over the same time period under that definition in #1 above?
4. With what amounts (and what sources are you drawing on to come up with those amounts)?
5. What percent of total aid to allies, to NATO, and to the U.N. over the last 75 years (#4 above) went to Israel?
6. Does Israel - given its geographic location, let alone its political and economic system - present any strategic value to the U.S.? Or to the rest of the world? If not, why not? What would the region look like without a strong Israel? Would Iran, for example, remain in isolation?
7. Which president and administration over the last 75 years took the position that the U.S. would play a role around the world as a supporter of democracy?
8. How would the U.S. economy have performed over the last 75 years if the U.S. had been an isolationist country?
9. Or, are you suggesting the U.S. could have made all the commitments it did over the last 75 years - except for having supported Israel?
10. What are the criteria you would use to decide what countries the U.S. supports and which ones the U.S. decides it shouldn’t support?
You seem to address the issue of aid to Israel in isolation and in a vacuum, as if there is no interrelatedness among the thousands of decisions that need to be made by leadership of a global power like the U.S. on the world stage, where countries form alliances and take stands with their allies both for and against other countries, other leadership, other political and economic styles (like theocracies, totalitarianism, and other forms of extremism which have tended to stunt or eliminate personal freedoms and human and economic growth.) And of course there’s energy and agricultural concerns on the part of every country that are taken into consideration. After all, mankind is wired to want to perpetuate itself. But back to the questions at hand, one last one: are decision of foreign policy so easy and simple to answer?
"and the way US has been going, it might bankrupt itself." -- Thank You! This guy gets it! It's almost as if we're just getting ourselves into more debt....But some will say, "we must do this!"
This is why we need to "Make Critically Thinking Great Again!"
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/critical-thinking-and-action-taking
Those three US Navy Carrier groups are shielding Israel from bigger threats than Hamas terrorists. They ain't cheap.
Yeah that’s not what the money is for. The naval support is all stuff we already paid for.
Raziel
You don’t understand the importance of Russia being defeated because you are myopic.
You dont understand how irrelevant Europe has become. It is dying continent with no resources. Why are we from US, funding a war for rich EU.
Anyone who clams that Russia or Europe is important, lives in last century. Future is in Asia.
As long as NATO exists, Europe will be important. You don't just dump your friends and leave them to fend for themselves against Russian aggression because Asia is the new shiny thing on the block. Allowing Ukraine to fall only puts NATO countries at greater risk of invasion. Russia's ultimate aim is to close the gaps that provide access into the flat, open expanses leading into the Russian heartland. That will require invading Poland, Romania and the Baltic states at the least. That is why those who just talk about Ukrainian corruption are myopic, and that's being kind. NATO knows Ukraine isn't some bastion of Western ideals and has serious issues. But they realize that if it falls, it will only put more countries at risk of an emboldened Russia.
There is a difference between "Helping your friends" and "helping a country that hasn't been a particularly great friend by giving them a blank check". Many of the people not cool with giving Ukraine money has to do with the lack of accountability for the money.
Except that in this case, helping the "not particularly great friend" just happens to help your friends. There is no perfect ally. We can't expect Russian aggression to take a time out until we work out all the kinks in accountability. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it something that should cause us to cease support? No.
Oh Oracle, please tell us of the importance of Russia being defeated. For the benefit of those of us who are accused of being myopic.
Many Americans are make lots of MONEY when war heats up. - the military industrial complex, Raytheon, Mitre, Lockheed-Martin etc and all the Congressmen and women who own stock in these companies - and there are MANY....they are all grifting off the American taxpayer....
Putin is involved in the Oct 7 attack. He has colluded with Iran and contributed funding to Hamas, all to take US attention and aid from Ukraine. It's why he hosted a Hamas delegation recently, and why his people instigated the riot in Dagestan. He turned on Israel because Israel helped Ukraine.
Even if all of those things were true that would just be further evidence that it is imperative to keep these conflicts separate at all costs. Unless you want another Holocaust to happen for some weird reason…….
You may need to adjust your meds.
That Oct. 7 attack was planned long before Putin went to war with Ukraine, my friend from up north.
In the past 48 hours alone:
-Houthi fighters fired at Israel from Yemen.
-TRUMP DREW ON THE HURRICANE MAP WITH A SHARPIE!!
-An Israeli air strike hit Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza, killing a senior Hamas commander as well as Palestinian civilians.
-FBI Director Christopher A. Wray warned senators that the Israel-Hamas war has increased the chances of a terrorist attack against Americans in the United States to “a whole other level.”
-TRUMP’S RHETORIC WAS INFLAMMATORY!!
-Israel vanished overnight from maps on the Chinese search engine Baidu.
-Egyptian prime minister Mostafa Madbouly said Egypt was “prepared to sacrifice millions of lives
-TRUMP TWEETED MEANLY!!
Kevin Durant
As always, you are at the head of the class on this site.
Reading this has made me ponder the issue of Colonization. Colonization was bad for sure and inflicted pain and suffering on others. Not questioning that. Although, I can tell you, it's been quite a long time since the US colonized anyone. Yet we are still blamed for history.
However, I think we have a new form of colonization that no one wants to discuss or admit too. That is the shear out of control illegal immigration across the globe from Europe to our shores. This colonization is the same as the earlier form of colonization. People coming in and demanding changes to suit their values and life styles from those already living there. Illegals demand free living and special privileges that the locals must pay for and change their lives to accommodate the illegals.
So in essence, colonization still exists, it's now called illegal immigration!
The problem is that working middle class families have to think so carefully about every life decision - if they have a second child can they afford daycare or
Saving for college for them or other expenses. If you come here illegally you don’t have to worry because all of those expenses are paid for by the working middle class people. If all those expenses are paid for (for example where I live if you come here illegally you go to college free whereas if you are a working tax-paying citizen you have to work really hard to try to save that money to help your own kids or to pay back loans which you had to take out). It is harder for American citizens to be able to afford housing or kids because they have to pay for those choices
In addition we try to shove our values “LGBTQ...” down other cultures throats. I guess it’s the new “white mans burden”
Wokemongers
One thing that is absolutely clear to me is that the second-half-of-the-20th-century decolonizing project has failed. With just a few exceptions, like India, all of the former European colonies are now basket cases.
Whether colonization was bad or not rather depended upon who the colonizer was, does it not? I can only think of two British colonies in which The People were not better off under British rule. (Hint: We're one of them. And I don't count India because of the oceans of blood that ensued.) No one with the misfortune of Belgium has ever recovered; French somewhere in between.
Call me a contrarian, but… colonization brought very real benefits to the colonized along with violence and strife. Like so many things in life, it is a two sided coin.
Unlike tribal warfare (where one tribe took territory and merely substituted their leaders/culture for the existing system), colonization brought with it new levels of development in technology, medicine, the written word, physical infrastructure, etc. well beyond what the indigenous peoples had developed. And when the colonists eventually left, those benefits largely remained (to the extent the colonized could maintain).
Whether or not these benefits are enough to balance out the drawbacks, I cannot say, but they exist and should be acknowledged in the analysis.
What have the Romans ever done for us?!
I agree -- and Lynne, you may observe, has cheerfully poked holes in my attempt at simplification.
They call them.Bloody Brits for a reason CJ. What they did to Ireland and India was horrific. The only reason they did not lower the boom.on the US colonies was because they were stretched too thin. Which ought to be a lesson to current whatever this is passing for leadership in the US.
True, particularly re: Ireland. India... I tried to acknowledge the ambiguity. Not sure that the unpleasantness leading to the partition was an improvement over the death throes of empire. And the Irish have also done bit of fratricide ("religiously" motivated) since independence.
I wish that was the only lesson that the current occupants need.
I will give the devil his due. The British Empire did a lot to spread literacy. And the modern Ireland has long been pro-Palestine.
I think that my mind was fogged with the African experience. And Andy Carnegie built a boatload of libraries too. People judging historic events by modern standards make me crazy, I guess.
I think nothing is all good or all bad. And I agree that judging the past through 21st century eyes is foolish. Actually worse.
The ultimate in colonization was begun by Muslims in the 7th century, then the Europeans in "The Age of Discovery", and finally, by the Brits and French after WW I as they carved up the Middle East into unsustainable borders, WITHOUT considering culture or tribal associations!
When people talk about Colonization, what they really mean is power. If they really cared about people being in countries that are not their own, most of them would be moving back to Europe or Africa to give this place back to the Indians. But no one is doing that. They use the word to mean "Someone with power that I don't think they should have and thus I am ok with someone taking it from them" all the while never including themselves in that vendiagram
🪒🛎️🔨
Best comment right here
During the BLM riots Starbucks was encouraging baristas to have a conversation with customers about race. Today I’m going to attempt to chat with the barista about decolonization. I await enlightenment .
I eagerly await the day when I live in a country with more plumbers and fewer food historians.
Watch the latest South Park. One of the plotlines is about how AI is taking jobs away from all of the supposedly educated and only the handymen know how to do anything, so they are all becoming rich.
And fewer baristas.
Just when you think "wokeness" was on the decline, along comes something like this...written of course by a puffy White woman who doesn't want you to realize that she's thoroughly enjoying the benefits of the society she's railing against - and probably sucking down pumpkin spice lattes while she's doing it.
The basic idea is for her class to continue to enjoy those benefits, while the rest of us pay for it.
Who exactly are you calling "a puffy White woman?" And what did she write that makes you claim she's "railing against" our society?
Sarah Wassberg Johnson, the "Food Historian" mentioned in the article. And any member of Western society I see jumping on the "colonizer/anti-colonizer bandwagon I interpret as "railing against" Western Society. The moral grandstanding is nauseating.
Thanks, Phil. I truly had no idea to whom you were referring. Yes, the "de-colonizing" schtick is just more race hustling for bux, and nauseating.
Watch for spit in your latte
Wait until they found out where coffee beans come from.
Especially Kopi Luwak. Animal oppression.
sounds like a legit move :-)
Babylon Bee editor woke up this morning and said, "Damn, the WaPo stole my story"
I guess I get that many of you don’t have the same skin in the game, but the US should absolutely support Israel and be on the right side of history. I’m sure no one’s forgotten, there was a barbaric genocide less than a month ago. Israel is in the untenable position of trying to address this with the world watching and judging and Hamas being masters of public relations, with their human shields and all. Israel is asking for just what it needs for this mission, and the situation is dire. Also, Blinken should not be asking Israel to use restraint, as he would never ask another country to do in similar circumstances. Plus, we have former American President Obama to blame in large part, since his love affair with Iran, and subsequent policy, had much to do with this happening.
A defeated Israel would have unthinkable repercussions, felt around the world. People are so short sighted. Sigh.
Obama had a little something to do with Ukraine too. Not to conflate the two. But related is the fact that infiltration of the executive branch alphabet agencies was initiated on his watch in the name of diversity. We now have full blown supporters of terrorism in decision making positions. This may be more significant than anything else he, and Biden, have done.
Anyone who voted for Obama or Biden, and thus supported their (and Kerry/Blinken/Sullivan's) "love affair with Iran," has Israeli blood on his hands. I didn't. Did you, Nina?
I did not. So interesting that you assumed that I did, why might that be?
I would request that every hyphenated-American carrying on about "colonization" please hand their house keys to the nearest Native American and commit seppuku or shut up about it right now. The hypocrisy is over the top. Can guarantee that if the Natives went "native" and took out Martha's Vineyard, there would be a completely different leftist narrative.
Because they’re FOS and too busy sipping their pumpkin spice lattes while pontificating to other shallow consumers about the scourge of colonialism or whiteness or whatever else flitters into their dim consciousness that day. They will never, ever make a personal sacrifice for any reason.
I'm reminded of an old Dennis Leary skit: "You've got women driving on LA freeways, rushing to their manicure appointments in air conditioned SUVs, drinking water that costs more per gallon than the gasoline, talking on their cell phones to friends 1000 miles away and complaining about how hard it is to live in America."
Decadence. I think I liked the self-absorbed 1990's version more than the other-obsessed, self-loathing 2020's version.
"Mitch McConnell prefers a package that handles Ukraine, Israel, border security, and Taiwan all in one."
Of course he does. Because borrowing money and giving it away is just way too much fun to worry about specifics.
"Egypt was 'prepared to sacrifice millions of lives to ensure that no one encroaches upon our territory' dismissing requests for the settlement of Palestinian refugees in Egypt."
I thought border enforcement was oppressive and racist. Liberals get really mad when we try to enforce our borders, when Hungary and Poland enforce theirs, when the UK does. But they don't say anything when China or Japan or Mexico or Egypt enforce their borders. It must be another one of those "white privilege" things. That's why I can't understand it -- I'm white.
J.D. Vance, over the weekend, talked about how we need to start making priorities. The government deficit is growing in exceptional revenue times for the economy. Taxes can't keep up. The media and Democrats, and Senate Republicans like to think of everything as a silo. It's urgent so we must spend on it. But there is not only a finite amount of money, and the government has to start making priorities. To do this, the path laid out by Speaker Johnson will be interesting to see how it plays out. Since Most of our "growth" was driven by deficit spending, this economic expansion will go as far as the spending will last. And with our enemies flooding the zone with conflict and working to create an alternative currency, we better start getting serious people into office who can think and communicate. as the next four years are going to be full of challenges. Sadly, neither Trump nor Biden will measure to the moment. One last point: when will the media speak about SBF and using his fake money to fund Democrats? I must have missed that.
Why the eff is some loathsome carcass like Mitch McConnell still the republican’s leader in the Senate? Do they have zero concern for credibility or effectiveness?
How did you change the voters when Trump has the highest percentage? They screwed Trump from the very beginning and the American people saw right through this. Maybe if Trump gets elected and cleans out all the corrupt people we can get back to business?
Who is They? How is he going to do this? Will he wear an orange cape to save the day? He still have to pass laws, hire good people and actually stay focused on the task at hand. Your hero worship is noted but its in a fanatasy world not based in reality.
Tell me why the polls show him at 46%? Not a hero worship. If he did a lousy job why were they after him with fake stuff. For someone who was not a politician, I think he did pretty good for an amateur. He did better than what we have now.
As bad as Biden is the polls should show him at 60% vs. that old idiot and the cackling fool of a VP. Why is he not crushing him?
Leftist controlled paid for media. Hard to believe that Biden is at 45% when his doing such a bad job. I think Obama is directing him.
I think the career bureaucrats in the executive branch alphabet agencies are in control.
Please, please, please quit bringing Trump into every comment. You have a perfectly valid point here, as you often do, but the Trump/Biden comment was gratuitous. Regarding McConnell in case you have not seen this already I think it tells one everything he or she needs to know about him:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-josh-hawley-citizens-united/index.html
My comment was about the choices meeting the moment - I just don't think Trump or Biden are the men to meet the moment. I will check out your link on McConnell, I will work on keeping my Trump comments under 50% of my posts going forward :)
To be clear I am not exclusively pro-Trump but I do not care for those who see people he brought into the fold as ill-informed, or as irretrievably linked to him. He brought a lot of people out to vote who had felt sidelined I think. Those people will exist regardless of what happens with Trump's campaign. It is extremely short sighted IMO for "mainstream" Republicans, like McConnell, to ignore them. I despise elitists. Whether Republican or Democrat. I think the Democrat party is beyond redemption and the jury is out on the Republican party. I am on team Johnson, Team Hawley and Team every other Republican named in McConnell's threat.
If we had settled the Ukraine conflict (instead of pouring gas on it) a year or more ago we would have one less “iron in the fire”. We should be a force for peace and stability, not war and carnage.
It wasn't up to the US to settled the Ukraine conflict. The most the US could do would be to make suggestions, or refuse to aid Ukraine and let Russia take over the country.
That is true but it is my understanding that the US has discouraged all attempts at negotiated peace in Ukraine and coupled that with promises of bottomless support. Which begs the question, why? Who profits from this?
Who profits? Arms manufacturers and the politicians who take money from them to promote their products. The people who buy the arms and resell them. The transportation companies who transport the arms. And on and on and on it goes. Do you want to become wealthy? Invest in war.
Precisely. I want to.protect my soul more than I want that kind of wealth. Of course the influence of most individual investors is negligible at this point.
That's true. unless you're in the Warren Buffet class of investor, you don't make a dent or even ruffle a feather. Wealth is fleeting, you're soul is forever.
I have heard that as well - David sachs talked about it on the All In Podcast
This is disingenuous to say the least. In Mar, 2022, we told Ukraine, "We have your back 100%! Go kill those Russians." We could have instead told them, "We support your independence, but we have no treaty with you, and we're not getting involved in a shooting war on Russia's front porch." This was exactly what we said to Armenia, no Yemen, to Sudan. That would have foreclosed most of Zelensky's more violent resistance options.
Even better, we could have said that in 2008 (instead of saying "Ukraine will be a part of Nato"). We could have said that in 2014 (instead of saying "Russia must leave Crimea").
Most of the countries in the world are effectively run by their neighbors. It wouldn't matter a hill of beans to us if Ukraine was too. The same can not be said of Israel. If Israel were "run by its neighbors", 9M Jews would be dead tomorrow.
Shoulda, woulda,coulda.
Why is it disengenuous? A short explanation will do.
"Most of the countries in the world are effectively run by their neighbors." Which of the 175 countries would those be?
Your claim that it's "not up to the US to settle the Ukraine conflict" is disingenuous because that's exactly what we've been doing for a year and a half. We have a settlement we favor: Russia goes home and gives up everything. That happens to be what Ukraine wants too, but that's not why we're pushing it, as many members of the foreign policy blob we quite honest about last year as they pontificated on "regime change in Russia".
My point isn't that said settlement is bad. I would love to see that happen. But I don't see why drawing down our own military stockpiles, taking on more debt, and depleting our strategic petroleum reserve (making ourselves significantly weaker while a peer competitor is rising in Asia) is worth it. Ukraine has made it clear that Russia is a 2-bit regional power now, and what happens on their front porch just doesn't matter that much to us.
To clarify my second point, the vast majority of nations in the world are surrounded by peer or stronger competitors who routinely "meddle" in their weaker neighbors affairs. The Indians do it (ask Bangladesh). The Iranians do it (as Iraq). The Russians do it (ask Belarus or Georgia). The Chinese do it (ask most of Asia). The Burmese do it (as Bangladesh). The Saudis do it (ask Yemen). The US does it (ask anyone). And don't even get me started on Africa.
It's not up to us to settle, and Putin is NOT going to fold and give up what he's fighting for. He's winning this war and he's prepared for a long battle.
Since we are “paying the piper” we can call the tune. We are financing this war so we have leverage.
The only leverage we have is overwhelming force with US troops involved and that's a non-starter. The NATO is not going to step in, they don't want to sacrifice human lives. Ideally, NATO would declare war on Russia and bomb them into oblivion. Or, better yet, don't declare anything, just do it, and at Christmas sing Underneath the Missle Toe.
I emphatically reject the teaching of hated and violence towards Jews.. However, progressive liberal Jews have never spoken out as Women studies have preached hatred towards men, Black studies towards whites and Queer studies against hetero-normative people. I hope they & others will speak out now. The time has come to reform these academic snake pits of hated by holding back financial gifts. They are poisoning our children's minds. We must stop it now!
It appears to me that progressive Jews in the US do not support the idea of a free and independent Israel.
There's never been a better time to lean into isolationist policies than right right now. Unfortunately we have a f*cking retard and a posse of criminals running the country as we speak.
Correction: We have No Idea who is running the Executive Branch of the US government. We're not allowed even to be told.
word.
We do know. Thanks to Musk, actually. It is the career bureaucrats in the executive branch alphabet agencies. Read Pompeo's Never Give an Inch for further info.
As a Democrat who has been left homeless, who is now definitely in the center but probably leaning increasingly right, I am left yet again with an appreciation, despite the messenger, of the message of the Trump administration because what those guys did was pretty incredible in hindsight.”
BW had written the following - including this in discussion would have added a great more clarity Is it just too painful? The same happened awhile ago in an interview w Ayaan Hursi Ali.
“So much of the work that happened in that [Trump] administration turns out to have been right. And that’s what is so frustrating for me. The work on the border wall? We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. Turned out it was right. Issuing long-term debt to refinance when rates were at zero? We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message. A structural peace in the Middle East? We didn’t like the messenger, so we killed the message.”
“When are we gonna stop shooting ourselves in the foot? And when are we going to actually see and take the time to look past who is saying things and actually listen to them word for word?”
"And when are we going to actually see and take time to look past who is saying things and actually listen to them word for word?" When you can separate substance from appearance. Which means thinking carefully about what you see and hear. Odd that the quoted piece does not mention the thought process at all.
Something happened when this was posted. This was a quote from Bari Weiss
Bari Weiss did not say that. She was quoting Chamath Palihapitiya, who said that on the All-In podcast.
Got it
This was quoting Bari Weiss. Disappointed conversation w Walter Russell Meade no mention of Trump policies
Was there some ground rule NO MENTION OF WHAT TRUMP GOT RIGHT? This TDS obfuscates what was glaringly correct direction re border, JCPOA, UNWRA, Taylor Force Act, taking out Suleimani, Iranian sanctions which Biden lifted now Iran awash in BILLIONS.
To be fair, there are murals of Sulemani being used to rally Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon today, so whether that one was a positive is still up in the air. The rest, I largely agree with you on. And yes, TDS prevents liberals from acknowledging this even while they veer their own policies in the same direction.
They have enough else to rally around but Iran was set back on its heels by taking out Suleimani and Biden should have taken similar strong action
Biden can't shoot that straight.
"The professor, who teaches migration studies..." ...such studies would involve birds, right? Oh wait...