• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Presidency Post Donald Trump

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
341
Points
980
Colin P said:
Iran was more or less winning the asymmetrical fight, they were using proxies, mostly with poor Afghans and others to fight in die for a pittance, their Iranian leaders more or less safe. By this action the US has said, that your no longer safe outside your borders, making Command and Control of their proxies far more difficult and dangerous. Coupled with mounting sanctions, raising domestic issues, Iran may find it difficult to both lead and pay for these proxies, meaning they won't operate with a common goal. As long as Trump is willing to offer a political solution to the Iranian leadership, coupled with an aggressive response posture and continued sanctions, we may very well see meaningful change within the power structures of Iran. What I have found interesting is how quickly the Clerics and the government blamed the IRGC for both the shooting the airliner down and the coverup of the blunder. They know the people want blood and are forcing the IRGC to put up it's own sacrificial goats in order to save the Government/clerics from the wrath. I suspect there are many palace intrigues going on and lot of sleepless nights for the leadership. If Trump gets re-elected, they are going to be very worried.

A country like Iran being very worried of a re-elected Trump is all the indication many should need to vote Trump this November.   

 

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
QV said:
A country like Iran being very worried of a re-elected Trump is all the indication many should need to vote Trump this November. 

It's a high risk high reward strategy.  If you're comfortable that the risk is worth the reward then yes you would want him re-elected.  If you're more risk adverse maybe not so much.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
341
Points
980
Baz said:
It's a high risk high reward strategy.  If you're comfortable that the risk is worth the reward then yes you would want him re-elected.  If you're more risk adverse maybe not so much.

I suppose it depends on what you'd consider higher risk; appeasement or deterrence.  Which just brings us back to foreign policy. 
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
499
Points
910
QV said:
A country like Iran being very worried of a re-elected Trump is all the indication many should need to vote Trump this November. 

How about the other 180 countires that are also worried?

Bam-bam is interesting as a troddler - a great character.  Bam-bam the drunk wife-beater?  Not so much.

Note - This is a metaphor.  I know he doesnt drink - not sure about Aderall.  As far as I know he doesnt beat wives - he just routinely changes them.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
I am worried about the next socialist President after Trump. We cant afford the price tag of a green new deal or carbon taxes disrupting the economy.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,880
Points
1,040
tomahawk6 said:
I am worried about the next socialist President after Trump. We cant afford the price tag of a green new deal or carbon taxes disrupting the economy.

For all intents and purposes (and by most US conservatives' standards these days) Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a "socialist" albeit he was a Republican. That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

;D
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,251
Points
1,010
FJAG said:
For all intents and purposes (and by most US conservatives' standards these days) Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a "socialist" albeit he was a Republican. That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

;D

Surely you are not comparing Teddy Roosevelt and the New Deal with T6's concerns about the havoc that a Bernie Saunders or clone would unleash on the US economy. That would turn out bad, wouldn't it?
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,509
Points
1,060
Weinie said:
Surely you are not comparing Teddy Roosevelt and the New Deal with T6's concerns about the havoc that a Bernie Saunders or clone would unleash on the US economy. That would turn out bad, wouldn't it?

FDR was the 'New Deal' guy. I'm no Economist, but it would be hard to imagine a financial crisis as serious as the Great Depression of the Dirty Thirties ever being possible again, thank Gawd....

20% unemployment would be almost impossible to achieve these days with the global supply chains so inter-dependent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,788
Points
940
A highly infectious plague running rampant in SE Asia might create temporary unemployment in those numbers, with a slow switch to manufactured goods taking time to correct for such. Such a plague would have to more or less shut down much of the marine shipping traffic and Air service, both freight and passenger.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,251
Points
1,010
daftandbarmy said:
FDR was the 'New Deal' guy. I'm no Economist, but it would be hard to imagine a financial crisis as serious as the Great Depression of the Dirty Thirties ever being possible again, thank Gawd....

20% unemployment would be almost impossible to achieve these days with the global supply chains so inter-dependent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Perhaps you missed my point. For FJAG to equate Roosevelt with socialism because of the policies he enacted under the New deal program is like saying that Jesus can't swim because he walked on water.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,509
Points
1,060
Weinie said:
Perhaps you missed my point. For FJAG to equate Roosevelt with socialism because of the policies he enacted under the New deal program is like saying that Jesus can't swim because he walked on water.

But Roosevelt was a socialist. A great big one. With a fondness for centralized state control of everything, like a dictatorship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,880
Points
1,040
daftandbarmy said:
FDR was the 'New Deal' guy. I'm no Economist, but it would be hard to imagine a financial crisis as serious as the Great Depression of the Dirty Thirties ever being possible again, thank Gawd....

20% unemployment would be almost impossible to achieve these days with the global supply chains so inter-dependent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt: Trust busting; railroad controlling; pure food and drugs; conservation; imperialist yet Nobel Peace Prize winning; Panama Canal building -- that guy. A real progressive (aka "socialist") Republican (back in the days when Republicans actually did something for the country's benefit rather than for their own.)

FDR was great too. I just wanted to establish the fact that "socialists" come in all stripes and are not necessarily the devil's spawn. (p.s. I don't like Bernie one bit - I prefer Larry David  ;D)

:stirpot:

 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,251
Points
1,010
daftandbarmy said:
But Roosevelt was a socialist. A great big one. With a fondness for centralized state control of everything, like a dictatorship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Historian George H. Nash argues:

Unlike the "moderate," internationalist, largely eastern bloc of Republicans who accepted (or at least acquiesced in) some of the "Roosevelt Revolution" and the essential premises of President Truman's foreign policy, the Republican Right at heart was counterrevolutionary. Anti-collectivist, anti-Communist, anti-New Deal, passionately committed to limited government, free market economics, and congressional (as opposed to executive) prerogatives, the G.O.P. conservatives were obliged from the start to wage a constant two-front war: against liberal Democrats from without and "me-too" Republicans from within.


You say poh tay toe...I say poe tat toe
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,251
Points
1,010
FJAG said:
I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt: Trust busting; railroad controlling; pure food and drugs; conservation; imperialist yet Nobel Peace Prize winning; Panama Canal building -- that guy. A real progressive (aka "socialist") Republican (back in the days when Republicans actually did something for the country's benefit rather than for their own.)

FDR was great too. I just wanted to establish the fact that "socialists" come in all stripes and are not necessarily the devil's spawn. (p.s. I don't like Bernie one bit - I prefer Larry David  ;D)

:stirpot:
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,251
Points
1,010
FJAG said:
I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt: Trust busting; railroad controlling; pure food and drugs; conservation; imperialist yet Nobel Peace Prize winning; Panama Canal building -- that guy. A real progressive (aka "socialist") Republican (back in the days when Republicans actually did something for the country's benefit rather than for their own.)

FDR was great too. I just wanted to establish the fact that "socialists" come in all stripes and are not necessarily the devil's spawn. (p.s. I don't like Bernie one bit - I prefer Larry David  ;D)

:stirpot:

My apologies FJAG. I was one Roosevelt too late
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
567
Points
960
This discussion would be so much more interesting if the Democrats actually had someone electable to put forward.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,880
Points
1,040
ModlrMike said:
This discussion would be so much more interesting if the Democrats actually had someone electable to put forward.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you on that one. There are several folks there that appeal to the Democrats (and IMHO who would be a better president than the incumbent-not a high bar) but my guess is they don't appeal to the middle of the road/go in either direction types. Last time there was a "anyone but Hillary" movement out there amongst the undecided. It will be interesting to see if an "anyone but Trump" movement will gel this time amongst those that were gobsmacked in '16 when DJT won.

:dunno:
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
In US elections its all about the economy. Trump's policies have freed it from the onerous Obama rules. Personally I expect 4 more years of President Trump. None of the current crop of Democrats is likely to unseat him. Already Democrat leaders are predicting a contested convention that might see a Hillary or Michele Obama. When that happens I will get the popcorn out.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
973
Points
910
>if the Democrats actually had someone electable to put forward.

Trump is so egregious that if he hadn't actually been elected, I would not have believed he could be.  I would like to believe that with an impeachment pinned to his tail he could not be re-elected, but the weak slate of Democratic front-runners is the least of the party's problems.  If the DNC and some media agencies (eg. CNN) are thought to be tilting the table for one of the progressives (Sanders, Warren) and then later on against the progressive in favour of the centrist (Biden), pissed-off voter defections to a third party candidate (eg. Green) can be the difference in key states just as in 2016.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
735
Points
1,060
Janet Daley is a senior columnist with the Daily Telegraph in the UK.  She is an American but went to Britain as a hard-core Marxist-Leninist.  And then the Unions turned out the lights and turned off the heat and closed down the railways.  And she became a fan of Margaret Thatcher and a confirmed Tory.

She is also a Brexit supporter and has railed against the deafness of the elite.  But she has never reconciled herself to Trump.

In this article she tries to explain to a Euro-Brit audience why Trump supporters are Trump supporters and why they seem to be willing to set aside the Constitution and its Institutions.  She fears the consequences.

I am a big fan of her opinions but here I think she is wide of the mark. 

Process or Intent.

Which drives you?

My sense is that for many people Intent rules their decision making.  They pragmatically decide on a course of action based on their appreciation of the current situation to achieve their intent.  The Process, the plan, the mechanism is secondary.  I believe that that is true for the vast majority of the population to whom life happens.  They have little sense of being in control.  They deal with a world of constant change on a daily basis.

The other side of the coin are those people comfortable in Process.  Content in their sense that by conforming to, and managing, the Process, then the world is ordered, someone is in control and they, as part of the mechanism, are able to exert control.  Some people are content to believe that others know what they are doing, are in control.  Some people aspire to be in control themselves.  Still others are just content to be professional courtiers and exploit the institutions of Process for their personal benefit.

It is my further belief that the divide between Trump supporters and the Never-Trumpers is the divide between those comfortable with managing chaos through pragmatism and those more comfortable with imposing order through principles and process, between those focused on Intent and those focused on Process. 

For those focused on Intent I suggest that the US Constitution is sacred for what it promises, what it intends - to provide a society of free individuals.  At the other end of the spectrum are those that accept the Intent but don't believe that you can get there without the Process.

But when does adherence to the Process result in Illiberalism?  When does the demand for conformity to the Process, for obeisance to the institutions, for obedience to the people in office become illiberal and threaten those pragmatically inclined free individuals and their ability to achieve their own personal intents?

My belief is that the inevitable tension between those demanding order and focusing on Process and those accepting chaos and focusing on Intent has reached the point it has because those that believe in Process, by establishing themselves in dominant positions and claiming to be the masters of the institutions to which they give credit for managing the situation, have set themselves up as targets for those no longer able to achieve their Intents.  Those denied that ability are forced to work harder, with less surety of success and accept that they will struggle to meet Laszlo's hierarchy of needs.  And they end up blaming those that were claiming the credit.

Apparently the concept of the "Knowledge Economy" gained popularity in 1969. I'm sure it sounded like a good idea at the time, appealing both to people in universities and to the vanity of Westerners, residents of all those brilliant Western countries.  And if their countries were brilliant then Westerners were brilliant too.  No problem then to start shipping jobs from Canada, the US, Britain and Germany to Mexico, Spain, Poland and China.  Those brilliant Westerners could then enjoy limitless vacations in green and pleasant lands buying cheap goods from prosperous Chinese.  If only they had money to buy fuel, food, clothes and shelter. 

Getting a ration of fuel, food, clothes, shelter and life from other people, no matter how well Intentioned they are, even if they are sanctioned through membership in an institution, is not a satisfactory answer.

Sooner or later people, individuals, will reassert themselves, pragmatically opting to do that which allows them to achieve their intent.

Democracy, or populism if you prefer, like capitalism, is not something that is imposed.  It is a base state, a chaotic state, upon which order struggles to be imposed by Process.  But imposing order demands energy and sooner or later people run out of the energy to maintain the order and entropy prevails.  Chaos reasserts itself.  Democracy, unqualified, unfettered, uncontrolled recurs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/18/teflon-trump-just-start-wests-post-democratic-apocalypse/



 
Top