Jump to content
The Education Forum

I agree with Trump


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Uh oh Cliff,

look what I found on the internet today while reading.

On CNN no less!!!!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/democrats-need-reform-new-york-primary-weaver/index.html

<quote on>

Every wing of the Democratic Party is rightfully outraged at voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Onerous voter ID laws, voting roll purges, felon disenfranchisement and more exist, or are springing up in one "red" state after another, with only one real goal -- keeping poor and working people, young people, and disproportionately people of color from voting.

In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary campaign, the DNC and both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns put aside their differences to jointly sue the Republican administration of Arizona over its shocking "mismanagement" of the election there that effectively denied the vote to legions of people. Thank goodness those things don't happen in "blue" states. Right?
Shamefully, they do.
Nowhere is this truer than in the great and solidly blue state of New York. It is no accident that, as confirmed by Politifact, "New York consistently ranks as one of the worst voting turnout states in the nation." In the recent New York primary (which was only for federal offices -- more on that in a minute), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored her surprise victory in the state's 14th Congressional District with voter turnout in that district of an abysmal 12%. Compare that with the City of Chicago and Cook County at roughly 30%; California at over 37%; Montana, 41%; and Idaho at 30%, with the county showing the lowest turnout clocking in at 22% -- almost double the turnout of NY-14. What's the matter with New York? <quote off>
 
New York is notoriously unfriendly to voters.
 
Are you saying that GOP voter suppression campaigns are justified?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Carter said:

I’m glad Hilary lost - she was assembling a national security team of neoliberal hegemonic globalists who gave every indication they were preparing to seize the moment and apply massive military force to reverse perceived geopolitical setbacks and directly confront Russia and China while they still held military superiority.

she was assembling a national security team of neoliberal hegemonic globalists

Oh really? Jeff. And who were this team?, name names.

Who gave every indication they were preparing to seize the moment and apply massive military force to reverse perceived geopolitical setbacks and directly confront Russia and China while they still held military superiority 

Whoa!, that's really juicy Jeff! "Just like 1960.  And what were those indications and from who among this group?, be specific!

They were preparing to seize the moment and apply massive military force to reverse perceived geopolitical setbacks and directly confront Russia and China while they still held military superiority.

Jeff, What is clear  from your paragraph here is that you're saying with your usual utter certainty (that is, "every indication" )this group of Hillary's hegemonic globalists  would "massively" "militarily" confront both China and Russia. Right?  So you're saying a 2 pronged war with both major military powers. Right?

Ok, and using what weapons?

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Politico article shared by Cliff insists there is “irrefutable evidence” of Russian meddling in Election 2016. A common refrain. It should not be forgotten that there was also, or so we were assured, irrefutable evidence that Lee Oswald shot JFK. That Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction was irrefutable as well, a “slam dunk.”  Just a few months ago the British government created an international incident based on, they claimed, irrefutable evidence of which there could be “no doubt” because it was so “overwhelming.” And yet, since, every single one of their major assertions has been shown to lack any substance at all.

What I see with the Trump thing is an elected President moving forward with a policy initiative which he campaigned on. And facing furious opposition from a power nexus tied to the Intelligence community and the corporate media. The Intelligence community and the corporate media were also deeply involved with selling the lies about Oswald and Iraqi WMD. Skepticism on the Russian meddling issue is a healthy position, in my opinion.

By the way, there was a big revision to the “irrefutable evidence” published by the NY Times on Wednesday. It looks like the “collusion” angle has now been dropped, and instead Trump is portrayed as simply psychologically incapable of processing the clear irrefutable evidence which had been assembled.

The Times article is written in exactly the same slippery imprecise language - implying things without actually stating them - that one can find in the official documents and news reporting that appeared assuring Oswald’s guilt and WMD in Iraq. The holes and fault lines in the “shifting narrative” portrayed by the NY Times are obvious if one has followed this story from all sides, but otherwise it’s just more irrefutable evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Kirk - thanks for the sarcasm. 

Here’s a name:

Michele Flournoy was slated to be Clinton’s Defense Secretary. Here’s a Guardian article which has background on her thinking and states she has “an agenda that confidently asserts American leadership in the world, backed by strong military force.”:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/17/michele-flournoy-hillary-clinton-possible-pentagon-chief-isis

The Guardian article points out Fluornoy , through the think tank  Centre For A New American Security of which she held a senior position, released a policy directive in the spring of 2016 which called for a more assertive US foreign policy relying on the use of military force.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order

There were others such as Michael Vickers, Michael Morell, Matt Olsen, slated to be involved in a Clinton administration who were known outspoken hawks. As you can see by the articles below, these people are described as preferring a “muscular” approach to the world:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/08/clinton-taps-former-obama-officials-for-transition-teams-at-state-defense/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-would-differ-barack-obama-foreign-policy-n653596

The indications from these people were that Clinton, upon achieving the presidency, would move to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, which would have required a direct confrontation with the Russian military. This was openly talked about in the US press in the autumn of 2016, as can be seen above (except the confronting the Russians part was usually left out). Furthermore, Obama’s Defence Secretary Ash Carter, also a potential Clinton cabinet member, made a policy statement in autumn 2016 announcing plans to "sharpen our military edge" as the next phase of the Pivot To Asia initiative, a policy designed to contain China. This next phase would rely on a big increase of military assets in the South China Sea area and more naval patrols directed at the Chinese presence there.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/ash-carter-asia-pivot-south-china-sea/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't think I have seen a phenomenon like this since Watergate for saturation coverage.

Hillary's e-mails in the hands of a pervert captivated the last 11 days of the 2016 election.

In March and again in May of 2008 it was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright-- Obama's crazy preacher -- on a 24/7 loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Kirk - thanks for the sarcasm. 

Here’s a name:

Michele Flournoy was slated to be Clinton’s Defense Secretary. Here’s a Guardian article which has background on her thinking and states she has “an agenda that confidently asserts American leadership in the world, backed by strong military force.”:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/17/michele-flournoy-hillary-clinton-possible-pentagon-chief-isis

The Guardian article points out Fluornoy , through the think tank  Centre For A New American Security of which she held a senior position, released a policy directive in the spring of 2016 which called for a more assertive US foreign policy relying on the use of military force.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order

There were others such as Michael Vickers, Michael Morell, Matt Olsen, slated to be involved in a Clinton administration who were known outspoken hawks. As you can see by the articles below, these people are described as preferring a “muscular” approach to the world:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/08/clinton-taps-former-obama-officials-for-transition-teams-at-state-defense/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-would-differ-barack-obama-foreign-policy-n653596

The indications from these people were that Clinton, upon achieving the presidency, would move to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, which would have required a direct confrontation with the Russian military. This was openly talked about in the US press in the autumn of 2016, as can be seen above (except the confronting the Russians part was usually left out). Furthermore, Obama’s Defence Secretary Ash Carter, also a potential Clinton cabinet member, made a policy statement in autumn 2016 announcing plans to "sharpen our military edge" as the next phase of the Pivot To Asia initiative, a policy designed to contain China. This next phase would rely on a big increase of military assets in the South China Sea area and more naval patrols directed at the Chinese presence there.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/ash-carter-asia-pivot-south-china-sea/index.html

Good critique, Jeff.  I'm not going to stick up for Hillary's foreign policy or any other Democrat who figures that if they don't grow hawk wings the Right wingers will call them pussies.

That's why I'm still a Bernie Sanders man.  I'm afraid that the foreign policy of the rest of the Dem field is going to be the same old regime change BS.

BUT we must acknowledge that the Democratic base is anti-war and a robust anti-war movement would put constraints on President Kamala Harris (she's the one I'm most wary about on foreign policy -- but I gotta admit the lady is sharp...scary sharp...)

A Dem Prez will have millions of their most intense supporters on the streets protesting an egregious military move.

Look what we have with Trump -- he cancels the Iran nuke deal and moves the American Embassy to Jerusalem.  Think he won't still attack North Korea if Kim pisses him off enough?

Trump's foreign policy is to forge a global white supremacist Axis -- the Kaucasian Khristian Kaliphate -- with him and a coterie of white autocrats running the world.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Politico article shared by Cliff insists there is “irrefutable evidence” of Russian meddling in Election 2016. A common refrain. It should not be forgotten that there was also, or so we were assured, irrefutable evidence that Lee Oswald shot JFK.

Oswald proclaimed his innocence.

Trump betrays his guilt daily.

Lies about Trump Tower Meeting equal collusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Most of this is just potential appointments and previous statements they made.Do you really think any of these potential appointments are any more hawkish than Trump's, Josh Bolton?? Mike Pompeo?, You're wrong. You're placing a lot of emphasis on "prospective" appointments. Sometimes these appointments are just a mix and practically some of them end up being  used for just the usual "saber rattling. "  Nothing to go completely alarmist about. This is really just a lot of the usual political jawboning by the msm sources, cnn, nbc, and the Guardian. They're not too concerned about it, no not because they're really just a mouthpiece for the American War Machine, but because they're aware of the political process and know a lot of this comes out in the wash anyway. It's worth mentioning that Hillary's prospective choices were more hawkish than Obama, but that's a hell of a stretch for what your asserting..

"she was assembling a national security team of neoliberal hegemonic globalists who gave every indication they were preparing to seize the moment and apply massive military force to reverse perceived geopolitical setbacks and directly confront Russia and China while they still held military superiority."

Jeff,  You've made a very pointed statement  here  about a world conflict incited by the U.S. with no less than the other 2 other major world superpowers. Is this really all you got?

 

 

   

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Kirk

you asked for names and I gave you some names…a couple of quick searches easily found material which described hawkish figures in the mix for a Clinton administration, and all of those articles anticipated that Clinton would herself be hawkish in her foreign policy. That’s just the mainstream stuff skimmed off the top. Fluornoy  was a bit beyond "prospective" for the Defense Dept job. Hillary had already destroyed Libya and encouraged the Honduras coup.

The substantive link in my post was the “rough blueprint for several crucial aspects of American foreign policy, which we believe the next occupant of the White House should adopt…”   

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order

This report is from Fluornoy’s own think tank advocating US hegemony, higher military budgets, and more assertive military activity across the world utilizing “ new approaches or more consistent application of time-honored approaches.” Just read the introduction, it says enough about where these people are coming from. A lot of information at the time indicated this thinking would be informing Clinton’s foreign policy decisions. The report advocates the application of military force under the assumption that US military power was without equal and that adversaries would not choose to challenge it. If this doctrine was tested in Syria, Russia certainly would have challenged. The pressure on Clinton to escalate against that challenge coupled with her psychology…. her cackling over the death of Gaddafi was a big reveal on her character. Obama did actually resist enormous pressure to escalate in Syria i.e. intervene using all military assets, while Clinton had consistently endorsed establishing a no-fly zone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're chasing a headline. That link doesn't at all support your specific assertion that a HC administration would incite a major military confrontation with the 2 other major world superpowers and no amount of your extrapolating makes it.

If there's a Trump-Putin hysteria you've proven there's also  an undying Hillary hysteria.

I see your standard of proof and I'll  keep it in mind in your future statements.

This reminds me of when I was very young and we were playing make believe army. Jeff, you were the older kid on the block who was the General,with the keys to the kingdom who magically knew the intentions and maneuverings of the enemy, strategizing etc..Now that we're grown men. Are we just expected  to accept your fantasy war game with a nod?  
 
 
Since I can see by your posts that you're  only nobly trying to help us by dispelling our native illusions, maybe I can be of similar help to you.
The problem is Jeff, You're spending a lot of your conscious everyday life up on a perch peaking over the hedge at your neighbors.This isn't really a healthy thing. If somebody removed the perch your life would probably descend into utter  desolation. But eventually that's what you'll have to do. I do understand though. We are very seductive. We will suck any inner peace you have in and spit you out and you won't even know it. In fact that's already  happened and  you don't even know it. You are definitely this threads alarmist town crier.
Make no mistake This will be a hard habit to break. I would advise you to take a year or 2 off.  You'll need it. Go out West. Banff is nice.The world will  still be here when you get back, and by that time you'll actually be happy about it.
 
heh heh

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Kirk

you asked for names and I gave you some names…a couple of quick searches easily found material which described hawkish figures in the mix for a Clinton administration, and all of those articles anticipated that Clinton would herself be hawkish in her foreign policy. That’s just the mainstream stuff skimmed off the top. Fluornoy  was a bit beyond "prospective" for the Defense Dept job. Hillary had already destroyed Libya and encouraged the Honduras coup.

The substantive link in my post was the “rough blueprint for several crucial aspects of American foreign policy, which we believe the next occupant of the White House should adopt…”   

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order

This report is from Fluornoy’s own think tank advocating US hegemony, higher military budgets, and more assertive military activity across the world utilizing “ new approaches or more consistent application of time-honored approaches.” Just read the introduction, it says enough about where these people are coming from. A lot of information at the time indicated this thinking would be informing Clinton’s foreign policy decisions. The report advocates the application of military force under the assumption that US military power was without equal and that adversaries would not choose to challenge it. If this doctrine was tested in Syria, Russia certainly would have challenged. The pressure on Clinton to escalate against that challenge coupled with her psychology…. her cackling over the death of Gaddafi was a big reveal on her character. Obama did actually resist enormous pressure to escalate in Syria i.e. intervene using all military assets, while Clinton had consistently endorsed establishing a no-fly zone. 

I agree wholeheartedly, Jeff.

If Clinton/McCain been President and had Assad overthrown -- the capital of ISIS might have been Damascus.

Trump lied relentlessly about his support for the Iraq War and the overthrow of Gaddafi, and openly speculated nuking somewhere in Europe.

So when it comes to foreign policy both Dems and Reps are twiddle-de-dum and the other guy.

But the base of the Democratic Party is anti-war, while the base of the Republican party has long been hawkish.  Nowadays, if Trump fellated Putin at  halftime of the Super Bowl his base would cheer.  If Trump said he needed to bomb the Kremlin his base would cheer.

With a Dem in the White House the progressive base of the party has a chance of exerting influence.

With a Rep in the White House there's no chance at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2018 at 11:34 AM, Jeff Carter said:

The Politico article shared by Cliff insists there is “irrefutable evidence” of Russian meddling in Election 2016. A common refrain. It should not be forgotten that there was also, or so we were assured, irrefutable evidence that Lee Oswald shot JFK. That Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction was irrefutable as well, a “slam dunk.”  Just a few months ago the British government created an international incident based on, they claimed, irrefutable evidence of which there could be “no doubt” because it was so “overwhelming.” And yet, since, every single one of their major assertions has been shown to lack any substance at all.

What I see with the Trump thing is an elected President moving forward with a policy initiative which he campaigned on. And facing furious opposition from a power nexus tied to the Intelligence community and the corporate media. The Intelligence community and the corporate media were also deeply involved with selling the lies about Oswald and Iraqi WMD. Skepticism on the Russian meddling issue is a healthy position, in my opinion.

By the way, there was a big revision to the “irrefutable evidence” published by the NY Times on Wednesday. It looks like the “collusion” angle has now been dropped, and instead Trump is portrayed as simply psychologically incapable of processing the clear irrefutable evidence which had been assembled.

The Times article is written in exactly the same slippery imprecise language - implying things without actually stating them - that one can find in the official documents and news reporting that appeared assuring Oswald’s guilt and WMD in Iraq. The holes and fault lines in the “shifting narrative” portrayed by the NY Times are obvious if one has followed this story from all sides, but otherwise it’s just more irrefutable evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

A very intelligent and nuanced discussion. The Russia Thing bothers me a lot, but perhaps not for reasons stated on this thread. What has been proven to my satisfaction is that Trump is financially tied to Russians. The question of whether that led, via meddling, to a Trump electoral victory seems to me to be the wrong question, and the constant focus in the more liberal media outlets on this meddling, or collusion, a big tactical mistake. Voter suppression in all its ugly forms and for all its morally decrepit reasons is the issue, and it’s one that Democrats have done little, at least so far, to combat. It’s a Republican Strategy, and it’s working. Whether or not Russian hackers got into the Clinton and Podesta emails seems to me to be serious misdirection. Cambridge Analytica has enough information on US voters to target specific groups and locations. They’ve closed their doors officially, but the critical information is still in the hands of Robert Mercer and Steve Bannon. This is the latest step in a long process of disenfranchising the majority. It’s not new at all, just far more sophisticated, and made necessary by changing demographics. To be blunt, the mostly white ‘ruling class’ has taken steps for decades to counter an existential threat to their government, one that was easy to predict for those who have long standing wealth to protect.

Trump is a crook and a bully, and his presidency is a disaster. Jeff - would you agree with that? I’ve read much of your material. I don’t see a Clinton presidency as more dangerous, something I heard from Global Research and others on what I would call far left media before the 2016 election. But like Cliff I supported Bernie Sanders, and like David Talbot I am now calling myself a Democratic Socialist. There can be little doubt that domestic policies of the Democrats are more inclusive and humane. At least the Democrats have a progressive wing, one that is growing as a result of the current disaster in the White House, and of the intransigence of the Center of the party. But both parties are guilty of hawkish foreign policies, and both parties are controlled by largely unseen hands with hidden agendas. 

The Republican controlled Legislators have passed a bill authorizing $5 billion for the Wall, and less than 10% of that amount for cyber security. In whose universe does that make sense? If Putin is a danger to us, it is cyber attack that would be his weapon of choice. Has he already done so? Have we? Is there a ‘cyber gap’? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...