Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kirk Gallaway

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kirk Gallaway

  1. Ben, I like that appeal to W. as far as Liz Cheney exhibiting "earnestness and fairness" at the hearings! As if she has "super woman" powers and going to run the table. If you've seen any of these hearings, they're all permitted about 5 minutes. It's mostly just a show trial. She'll be intense in her questioning and make the nightly news, but she'll be pursuing questions any of us would have. In the end, whether she was there or not, I'm not sure it matters much. As for the hearings, I have no idea effective they'll be, but I have my doubts. In the last impeachment trial they didn't call a key witness John Bolton, it seems because they didn't want to play spoiler for his upcoming book.. They're certainly talking tough like giving subpoenas to the Trump family, Kevin Mc Carthy, Jim Jordan,and also getting extensive phone records from Boebert, Greene, Gaetz, Gohmert and Biggs, Gosar and Mo Brooks who I'm particularly curious about.. I'd expect at least that, otherwise it's a joke. But of course, they'll either fight it, or they can just take he witness stand and lie about their communications anyway. But even if they couldn't prove there was extensive planning, if the President was revealed to be dragging in his response to stop an insurrection he started, to most Americans that is a big deal. I know you're worried about the national security state, as we all are, but I have no idea what an individual, including a President, could possibly do to upset you Ben. In The America I grew up in, if you were a crook, you better be good at it, or you lose! But there was at least a quest for excellence.Now a President can foment an uprising to nullify a legitimate election and we forgive him because he's so inept at it. heh heh Re congress: It's like a third of the country's in a grade school that's been taken over by a bully, and even the janitors are fleeing. Then we should send a message out to the Republican Trumpies, that we don't care how absurd you are, BS walks straight into a jail, but I don't think the hearings are designed to do that.
  2. Lawrence, I thought your letter hit the spot. Biden has campaigned under a slogan that government can work for the people. Obviously if government is hiding secrets. It's not working for the people. Unlike issues such as the Sirhan parole, Biden could use a freer disclosure policy to his political advantage as in theory, everyone wants freer government disclosure, and particularly now, there is a clamoring for it by both the right and the left. Even if Biden was another cynical politician, if he was capable of thinking out of the box enough. I think this issue could actually be a small winner for him.
  3. That's where your heartaches begin, Elvis Ben: My take on US politics these days is exhausted resignation, I am disappointed that the first US political movement to challenge to national security state-foreign policy Deep State prerogatives in 50 years...is the regrettable Trumpers. Yes, and that's why you were always doomed to failure. Mostly because you're initial premise is wrong. Ben:My take is Liz Cheney loathes, detests and reviles Trumpers most of all for...not their domestic politics, but their "isolationist" foreign policy Trump js not, and never been an isolationist, he's personally more a globalist with global interests throughout the world than any previous President. He is absolutely not an ideologue at all. But reacts internationally mostly from the perspective of how it effects his personal interests. Similarly the rank and file people who follow him are not at all ideological other than some,misplaced anger against the "government" or authority that you've sort of glomed on to as ideology. .. There was never anything more to it. Whatever sort of anti globalist populist rhetoric Trump had in speeches was not from Trump himself but was given to him by Steve Banon. Though I do have some sympathy for your misdirection, I've tried to dialog with you about a world without globalism and the U.K."s role in it , and history without it , but you choose not to.. The same condition to the prospect of anti globalism doesn't really exist as much in the U.S. as the U.S. is this biggest world consumer bubble that foreign countries cutthroat vie for a piece of, but few can compete for. Just sayin" As for your lead character, Liz Cheney and now endless speculation about her sympathy to some role her father had in 911, I won't even address. But your previous assertions that she's become a kingpin in the Democratic Party was honestly wacko. Liz Cheney is a politician, without a political party, whose operating under the present illusion that she can bring her party back. Her chief antipathy to Trump is not that Trump pulled off any coup in world anti globalism, though regarding U.S. foreign intervention, it's true that she was more concerned about Trump's rhetoric then the eventual reality, but far more than either of those is her anger toward Trump for destroying the Republican Party.
  4. You're right Steve, If they didn't believe they were conspiracies, they could hardly be called gutless. When I say "gutless". I'm referring to those who were silent for many years and have recently come out this century. If they believed that, why were they quiet for so many years? I suspect the Kennedy's are like a lot of families, they have some believers, some agnostics and some skeptics.
  5. Like Ben, not being a photo expert. I've been rather agnostic about the fakery of the BYP, and that could easily fall within the biography build of Oswald.. The shadows argument I was never sure of, but I didn't think was as clear cut as the photo skeptics alleged. I always thought it curious that they would insert an Oswald head leaving the old chin. Why not just import Oswald's whole head and let the shadows below on the neck play to your obvious advantage? Yes it seems to me the chin could look different. but that kind of variation exists within photos that have been taken of ourselves. The posturing angle, that Oswald was so so off balance never impressed me much. The scope missing in the retouching of the photo and the being casually passed off would appear to me to be the the strongest point for fakery and resembles Gerald Ford's admission of altering the location of the JFK neck wound, and in any mind should arouse some suspicion.. I'm not making an argument against the fakery. I'm an agnostic. But nobody yet has given a substantive critique of the fakery critique. The closest Jim alludes to about points 2 and 3. Though he doesn't get specific. As usual the next thing is to a attack the messenger. Having said that, I think Anthony's background check of Farid is valuable, and well worth mentioning but not conclusive of any conspiracy to debunk the photo. I think the guy probably sincerely believes it's bunk. Isn't a big point made for the BYP fakery about Buddy White, or what's his face?? I don't want to look up his name, but the cop who died and left the doctored BYP photos and his son claims was involved in the JFKA. Those stories will always be hard to dissuade to people who believe them. I'm a bit of an agnostic as well on that. .
  6. Geez, Ben, what's with your hero Glen Greenwald?? Is Biden's pulling out of Afghanistan making him lose income, and then his mind? Why would he choose to retweet this quote from Alexandra Chalupa? Hasn't he always seen Putin as a hapless victim of the U.S. Deep State's Russia Gate? And now he agrees that Putin holds all the cards and was in fact, controlling Trump and now Bernie as well?. I'm confused. Is this a sea change? Or is Glen just getting bored with the old conspiracy roles? https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?ea_u=3236227254&ea_e=1631899499&tweet_id=1433799641104007168&ea_s=51f1be2f798d01fe92958977ce8a7128703463a5&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email It’s time for the media to admit Bernie, like Trump, was cultivated by the KGB decades ago and part of Putin’s hybrid warfare against the U.S. Both campaigns had top advisors who influence peddled for the Kremlin together and ran complementary playbooks; i.e., Manafort & Devine.
  7. Well if what you say is true Ben, then this reluctance to get out should boil over pretty quick. And I'd like that. But if the msm is nonstop coverage of "misery and unrest in Afghanistan" for the next few months. . Because I wouldn't want to go back into Afghanistan , that doesn't mean I don't care about Afghani atrocities. After all, they are people. Just like you were saying fondly about the rioters in 1/6, that you like them because, to you they represent "the downtrodden, the unprivileged, the disenfranchised," etc. Oh that's right you've had a change of heart and now they're "cretins", right?? heh heh!
  8. Doug: The bottom line is that virtually everyone who closely follows foreign affairs as much as domestic affairs believes Biden has committed a geopolitical error of incalculable magnitude that puts our country in mortal danger. I concur in that assessment. **** Ho! virtually everyone Doug? Or maybe....anybody whose anybody??? Just like virtually everyone who believes JFK was killed because of the Alien Presence? Huh! Well uhh.... thanks for the dialog Doug! Whoever would have thought that Joe Biden would become the next Eugene Mc Carthy, and we'd become a nation of hawks and doves again?. ***** I was saying this awhile back. People here project that all presidents are hostage to the Defense Establishment which is largely as powerful as it was during the JFK era. 50 years have passed. Times actually change! -We got into the Iraq War and our extended occupation of Afghanistan through George W. Bush and his PNAC group. He was under no pressure from the militarily or politically to start a war in Iraq. He did it to himself, and all of us and the rest of the world. Each successive President, Obama, Trump and Biden could have taken the heat and gotten out of Afghanistan and only Biden chose to, and he's taking the heat. i could see particularly from a foreigner watching the U.S. aggressive foreign policy over the years. It would seem very spooky. What is it that prompts all these U.S.Presidents to invade countries and continually perpetuate war, then the next thought is what's this, some ungodly cabal similar to the ones that killed JFK that force the President, or else? To demystify this from the military dictating policy to each successive President, the truth is there's a whole other factor involved, and that is the complicity of the American people. There are whole towns and medium size and rather large cities where the Defense industry is the chief employer, and the entire economy revolves around the federal defense budget. This is more true in red states , where the defense industries dominate the general output because their overall economies are smaller. To the extent that the American people also buy into this false narrative of every successive President's beholding to the mighty Defense establishment, That's really not taking responsibility. Americans, themselves are a very security minded people. There are many people in the U.S. who buy this credo of American Exceptualism, and have a mindset that they are indispensable to the free functioning of any world that they would ever consider living in. The problem lies largely within ourselves.
  9. That's true Ron, but that's nothing new. This is going to sound harsh, but the Kennedy family always been rather, I would say gutless. Certainly no one can say, they spoke out with courage. And after the JFKA, many were looking for some grasp of a hand. They've never really been any help, or source of encouragement to the JFKAC until relatively very recent history. We have the presupposition that RFK was keeping silent until he planned to open an investigation into the death of his brother once he was elected President, which could be true, but I never really bought into it much. But still, that could explain a few things. But what possible political reason could the successive generations have for keeping shut?. No one would necessarily begrudge the Kennedy' clan for using their resources to further pursue investigating the assassinations of their family members. In fact they would have been a very potent force at keeping the outrage and the skepticism fresh in the public mind when the trail was fresh. I'm not sure what future political aspirations would hamper them as in the alleged case of Bobby, but certainly none of those aspirations ever came to be played out.
  10. I'm not sure if subsequent posts were pro staying in Afghanistan or not , but I'll try to address what Doug's saying. Doug: In my opinion America and the free would will pay heavily in geopolitics for what Biden had done. In his speech yesterday he claimed he had ended the "Forever War." Ok, so what do you propose? Are you making the argument we should stay indefinitely because after all it's only 20-30 billion a year to employ a small force of 2500 who keep things reasonably stable in at least Kabul? Doug: In my opinion America and the free would will pay heavily in geopolitics for what Biden had done. In his speech yesterday he claimed he had ended the "Forever War." Then he went on to declare a new war, this one on terrorists who threaten America. But that's not a new war, presumably isn't that what we say we've been doing for the last 20 years? But we don't know the working reality of that statement. He's done the deed and how do we know he's not just trying to assure the hawks that America just won't roll over in the future. We don't know how much commitment that statement entails. RE New Yorker article:200,000 people Doug? So we're a lot better at making friends than I ever thought we were! So we owe it to everybody whoever co operated with us? I'm not going to trust the Taliban , but is there any point in them seeking reprisals on 200,000 people? They've got a country to run and have to understand to keep it from crumbling they are going to need some cooperation from world community. Doug: China now knows it can move against Taiwan. The terrorists now know they can move against America's homeland, maybe as proxies for China and Russia. I'm not sure what you mean specifically by the Middle East terrorists moving against the U.S in our homeland as proxies, but we certainly can't be sure to be safe , from terrorist attacks based within the U.S.. China moving against Taiwan is the big one, isn't it? But of course Taiwan has the "silicon shield" . In some senses Taiwan Semi conductor has the whole world hostage and if it was, for any reason, to stop production, the world would be shut down. So they hold some chips against a Chinese invasion. Of course, you have an impressive resume Doug. I've won a couple of Mandarin Speech contests and was considering being an interpreter many years ago, but decided i didn't want to go that route. But it did leave me some knowledge about the Chinese culture. This could sound Pollyanneish , but they've had a long history of being invaded but not being an imperialist power. They seem to be intent on taking over the world economically using far less weapons and bombs than our history shows we have. We'll see if that's where history's trending. We largely gave them Hong Kong. But in the meantime,let's hope we'll l be hearing mostly a lot of saber rattling about them taking over some largely uninhabited South Seas Islands.
  11. You might find this interesting Anthony, as well as others. A Walter Cronkite interview about the Warren Report with John Mc Cloy. John Mc Cloy was a very accomplished person prior to being picked for the Warren Commission. But it is interesting at how the art of public speaking has evolved. After a somewhat prepared statement, when asked questions, Mc Cloy continually looks away in the interview as if referring to his notes, that don't really exist. He can't seem to know what to do with his glasses and nervously fidgets at times. Modern public speakers emphasize being more relaxed and there's a developed art of distinguishing "tells" in body language. But not so much back in the day. One could certainly get the impression from Mc Cloy's body language that he's hiding something. Around 4:20, "I sat at the window with the very rifle at what seemed, must have been the exact spot that whoever the assassin was sat"
  12. Interesting fodder for conspiracy! Notice the curious timing in sync with Fox News lambasting Biden's speech today for hunkering down on his ending of the Afghan War, and vigorously defying elements of the MSM and the Defense establishment.. Is it really a coincidence that Glen Greenwald is in lockstep with Fox News and is now tweeting as to Biden's alleged dementia" Glen Greenwald: Anyone who has paid attention to politics for any period of time has seen Biden over the years. Is anyone willing to say with a straight face that his cognitive decline and even physical impairment aren't clearly visible? Doesn't mean full-blown dementia, but we can all see it. August 30 Very curious timing, why now?
  13. Chris, Regarding Your quotation below of Robert Kiyosaki's about Kamala Harris's VP running mate. Kiyosaki: TRUTH to come out. When Kamala is President the House and Senate will have to confirm her choice for Vice President. Her VP choice will show the world who the real “PUPPET MASTER’s” are. Stay awake. Rarely will people ever see who is “the real Wizard of Oz,” behind the curtain. You've mentioned Robert Kiyosaki before Chris. Robert Kiyosaki is another one of these get rich quick shysters, that I've always resented his marketing handle which is to put down his poor financially unsavvy biological father in favor of his financially savvy sort of adopted "rich father". I always hated his willingness to use his real father as a stooge in his marketing scheme. I think that says volumes about him as a person, but that's me.. I think the proof in the pudding about Kiyosaki is that he is actually a part of Trump U. and has done many seminars with Trump. Of course you know that. That's why you always seemed so willing when you first came here to embrace Trump as some savior against the "Deep state" (which in Trump talk, is any entity that could possibly collect taxes from him) and were the first here to suggest the election was stolen. Similarly in your chosen topics, there's very little about climate change, wealth inequality, very little disdain for the financial elites, you're actually down on taxing the rich, stating the same reasons that the rich always use. "The rich never pay taxes anyway", and then you use the ever present elitist threat," besides the rich will just pick up and move somewhere else", which I'm sure happens a lot in the U.K., but not much in the U.S. While the financial elites barely deserve a mention, the whole problem to you is solely the totalitarian government which is exactly the pablum the elites try to tell the everyday people in their long term objective to defund the government while they're controlling it, so they can squeeze the government of resources in a way to leave only their priorities remaining. I'll credit you that hopefully you're not conscious of that, but are another aspirant, duped into another "get rich in America" dream. Anyway, those are just my impressions from rather corporate statements you've made and influences you cite. Speaking of which, As for your quotation of Kiyosaki, whose obviously no fan of Kamala Harris. That's sort of typical of the unsubstantiated statements, you're sometimes liable to post here on this thread Chris. There is nothing more behind it than a fat rich billionaire turned political prophet, airing his wacko suspicions of a supposed "Socialist" who would dare insinuate that Kiyoshi pays more taxes. In the end, he doesn't even deliver the VP's name, because it's all a tease to get more subscribers. And you don't have to speculate any more about it than that. It's like that other right wing tripe rumor I heard here during the 2016 election that the DNC knowingly made Biden the party nominee for President knowing he was soon to die (or maybe killing him?) in order to make Harris President!
  14. Doug, you keep pounding home the political price Biden will pay for his blunders in Afghanistan. I've always seen from the links you post that you have what I have interpreted as old right wing friends that occasionally pop up in your links and newer left wing friends. It seems to me Biden is being punished because the President fled and his army collapsed. To this you would normally blame American Intelligence. Personally I've always thought these agencies are like huge elephants in the room who always ended up shooting themselves in the foot to mix metaphors. It never impresses me as something that necessarily can carry off anything in detail, much less an all imposing "deep state", but I digress. It's the arms suppliers and the contract people who are the chief beneficiaries.. The neocons hated Trump's rhetoric and then found the reality of Biden turned out to be worse. If the neocons have no place else to go, that's a good development. But at least we're starting to ask some questions. If this does in fact ruin Biden's presidency as you predict it is a victory for the neocons. We hear these cries of "who will ever trust the U.S, militarily anymore". If that's a greater barrier to them getting involved with us. I think that's another good thing, as well that we have should have a lot more reticence about nation building in the future. The Republicans will always have the luxury of criticizing, while on one side of their mouths they'll try to act like they realize they can't be there forever for the public and the other side, they'll never really propose how they would have pulled out any differently, or pulled out at all. JMO
  15. That's true Ron, but what's so completely pathetic is what a squirming l-ar he was in these interviews when asked if he conversed with Trump on Jan.6th. First, obviously feeling he was on home ground with Fox's Bret Baier, he was completely taken sideways by the Baier asking him. Watch how he hems and haws and obfuscates. But if that isn't pathetic enough, you'd think he would have been better prepared the second time when further questioned by another guy. Look at the first 2:08 of this for the clips. It wasn't at all significant to Jordan if he talked to Trump before, during, or after the riots. You'd think maybe the content of the conversation with Trump might jog his memory, but he can hardly remember. I love how Jordan positions himself in the second interview with an American flag and a football behind him. You'd think after the allegations of him being quiet about the pedophile coach in the locker room in his past, he's be careful about evoking his locker room past. And to think Kevin Mc Carthy actually wanted to include him on the Jan.6th hearings, before Pelosi nixed it. He's accomplished almost nothing in Congress other than, of course being a a legendary Republican hero against the National Security State to Benjamin heh heh
  16. Richard said: it would be political suicide--he would only gain points among far-left radical progressives and marginalized groups. No gains anywhere else. For the vast majority of moderates and average liberals he certainly gains nothing, and it will give conservatives ammo to use against when he runs for President. Last thing he wants to see is the campaign TV commercial with pictures of RFK's corpse lying on the kitchen floor and having that tied to his insincere smiling face. Richard, You're pretty much reiterating the political angle I was saying. But the way things have polarized now. I don't think Newsome would care what the Conservatives say about the Sirhan parole in Conservative ads in Red states, he'd just go for the blue states, but why would he take that unnecessary chance in moderate states?. There is no political pick up in Newsome not taking action. And you're probably right.
  17. I agree with your sentiments, Ben. But I'll give you a different slant than the "victim" slant you're looking for and liable to hear here. These stories have been around for a long time, and even if they were a concerted MSM effort to discredit JFK. It's always backfired. In fact, I think with post 40's crowd who were aware of the power dynamic they grew up with, by in large it's only added some mystique to JFK, as well as a lot of naughty actions, by the young Kennedy siblings of the 70's. The Kennedy's despite all the tabloid action, are the most durable political dynasty on the American scene, and it's not even close. Not that the successive generations of Kennedy politicians can get away with that now. The only outlier, is the millenials and younger super politically correct crowd, who might view this article with disgust.But I don't see that impairing the new somewhat wholesome generation of Kennedy politicians.
  18. This is good stuff! And not easy to predict. 1)Personally I don't think Newsome will be recalled. 2) I don't think this recall will interfere at all in his ambitions for higher office. Which is not to say, he'd be successful. He'll be trounced over and over again for his dinner in Napa , as he should be. But a lot of it is sour grapes about the pandemic, and he's definitely made mistakes. But most people understand that's a hard thing for any politician to navigate, but he comes out on the right side of history. Though the variant has complicated things in what was to be a cakewalk. Some think because of results in the UK and India, that it should peak within a couple of weeks in the U.S., but in California, it's confined mostly to rural, unvaccinated areas. Jim's right, if he lets Sirhan go free, it won't be in any activist sense, he'll just say "let the will of the courts be done", and distance himself from any involvement, because he is an unabashed politician, and as Richard says, 1) the thing he least wants to do is entangle himself in a conspiracy theory. but 2 )it's not a good decision for the straight liberals who support him who believe that Sirhan did kill RFK, 3) He gains nothing with the moderate crowd, but looks like a bleeding heart liberal, which is not a good look for a liberal like Newsome. heh heh.
  19. A motley crew of anti vaxer's speaking out of their oppression in a San Diego board of supervisors meeting.
  20. My best wishes as well. Rest up, do only what you're comfortable with. Get well!
  21. I think Obama could have and should have gotten out of Afghanistan in his first term. It would have put the blame on the War, squarely on the people who started it, Bush and the Republicans. As it is now, any online newbie from anywhere can parachute into, and be an expert on the American political scene and make no distinctions and declare the Democrats just another war party. I don't really forgive Obama for that. I think of Obama as the "Jackie Robinson" of the Presidents, and he saw himself as that.. I think it has to do with Obama's psychological make up. I guess anybody can be an armchair psychoanalyst. There's an interesting anecdotal story about Obama. As a student at Harvard when Obama won editor of the Harvard Review, later his leftist allies who voted for him over the conservative candidate became upset with Obama , for bending over backwards to the conservative he beat. Later as President, Obama was honorable and too concerned with being fair and got steamrolled by Mitch Mac Connell. There are numerous incidents of that, including one in the fall of 2016. Being the first black President he didn't want to be seen as uppity. Just my take.
  22. Ben: Concerning his exhaustive research into Amy Klobuchar talking points. BEN:There is more, but your eyes would glaze over. A big section on China (I loathe the CCP, btw). China is a real economic threat. It's the one thing Trump got right. If you loathe the CCP, then why are you putting her down for that? But my eyes are already glazed over. I'm not sure why you chose a midwest Democrat Amy Klobuchar's sort of boiler plate foreign policy statement to mean anything. She actually ran for President in 2020 and was beaten soundly. So she doesn't represent a sizable chunk of the dems. About the only good foreign policy things I can say about her is that she was for the U.S, Iran multi national agreement,( that actually was backed by Putin and Russia if that validates it for you,) and that was opposed by Cheney and was jettisoned by peacenik Trump. She also favored Obama opening up relations with Cuba, again opposed by Cheney, and Trump dumped that as well.. These are substantive issues. Unfortunately in the U.S. there are only 2 parties, so they cover a lot of ideological ground. Ben:If there is anybody opposed to the national security state today, it is the populist wing of the GOP On the surface, that may seem so , but you're confusing the pablum that Tucker is directly feeding you, but Steve Banon was the architect of, as reality. You talk about the "populist wing of the GOP". Do you have anything specific on who you're talking about? Can you name me one person that you'd like to defend? The great majority of the "populists" you're mentioning were never really on record espousing anti national security state views, (maybe the Paul's,) and if you look through their history in public statements, were pro Bush's War in Iraq. They're just blindly following whatever Trump says. There is a character element in all this stuff as well. So there's a bit more going on under the surface. Ben I get from you there's one big issue and that's the U.S. National Security State. Oh and of course "identity politics". But since you were probably the last person here to predict Biden would get out of Afghanistan, you can now see there's a lot more resistance in the U.K. and Europe and throughout the world than just the U.S, "Deep State". But there's also a myriad of other issues that we citizen's of the U.S. face; there's issues of Environmental Protection and climate change. There's a struggle for civil rights and voting rights. In the U.S.. there are severe income inequality issues and some of us are trying to build a more equitable health care system. We're going through a pandemic and there's been a massive economic displacement here and throughout the world. These problems do exist whether Tucker and Glen Greenwad talk about them or not. No I don't agree with that either Ron. So Biden has a choice, but Obama didn't have a choice, because he would have been assassinated.?
  23. Wow! Not the first Stone I thought to roll, but I did think Keith may have had 9 lives! RIP
  24. John said: However, I am not sure Larry is right when he says a capitalist country should be able to compete economically with communist China. It would be true if China was a communist country. However, it is more accurately described as "state capitalist". This is the most effective economic system ever and very difficult to compete with. Most importantly, the government controls "labor costs" and major investment in the economy (it also controls outside investment). This is really a cogent point. It's really a hybrid of Capitalism and a planned economy. For example, Two of the biggest issues in the U.S. now are 1) wealth inequality. The CCP are going after the billionaires and are going to be a lot more successful than the U.S. ever could be. 2) There's a lot of talk by both parties in the U.S. about the power of social media. Europe has taken a more regulatory stance, but The CCP is just sweeping in and taking control in a manner we would consider Draconian, and there's not a long history, or culture of respecting individual rights to offer much resistance. The weakness is it rests on critical decisions, by a very centralized group and if the judgment is wrong it could be, at some time disastrous, as for example it has occasionally been with overbuilding, as there are 100,000 people cities that are completely unoccupied. But up to now, the economy has been such a powerhouse, it can easily be absorbed. The Chinese are everywhere funding foreign infrastructure projects. There is a total of about 800 foreign infrastructures projects in every major continent. In Panama they are talking about the increased Chinese influence. There is still a loyalty or a willingness in Latin America to look upon the U.S. as a big brother. I'm not sure why, but there is a perception that the U.S. could be their natural benefactor if the government didn't from time to time get in the way. But that perception has to be changing. I remember for many decades there was a grueling, bumpy 9 hour bus ride from Guatemala City to a remote region in the Guatemalan rain forest and the Mayan temples of Tikal. I didn't go there over a decade and 15 years ago when I last went, I found that whole route had now been paved. I wondered how the Guatemalan government managed to do that? And I found out it was an infrastructure project funded by the Germans. The Germans? If the U.S. had done more of that rather than just selling arms to perpetuate a 5% middle class that preserved our corporate interests, they had the chance to be the benevolent super power that the West so much looked up to after WWll.
  25. Jim, we had this discussion, maybe a year ago. Didn't you argue that Nixon was the worst for the reasons that Ben stated. The overall loss of life during Nixon's administration was the greatest and he and Kissinger knew early on the war was unwinnable. It's a persuasive argument, the overall loss of life. But anyway, welcome aboard! I agree of the two, W. is worse because he chose to enter a completely elective war, and was under no real pressure from the MIC, and the extent of both his and Nixon's actions were both very far reaching. But you can always argue Nixon inherited the Vietnam War, though his role in history shows a sinister influence before he ever became President. As for Trump, I'd say, he was the least fit for President, and the extent of the damage he's caused to the Nation itself, isn't fully known and can't really be assessed truly for probably the decade. Though it's a good argument to say the loss of life under Trump because of the pandemic will always be hard to determine, but will at least contained to the country, that he was President. And I notice W's chief partner in crime, Tony Blair has now called Biden's actions "imbecilic".
  • Create New...