[barmar]

mike777, on 2017-August-18, 17:26, said:

btw I believe the coal industry is up, dramatically up in places. Technology/robots continues to chip away at jobs even in this industry

But what Trump promised was to bring back coal jobs. Revising the industry was supposed to be the means to that end, not the goal itself.

But those of us who understand economics knew that this was something he couldn't come through on. All the policies he's been pushing for about relaxing industry regulations, reducing offshoring, etc. will not actually create many jobs here. They might help the businesses, and thus the 1-percenters who own them, but it won't flow down to the middle class workers who have seen their jobs erode in the last generation. This erosion was not because the businesses were failing, it was because technology made many of them redundant.

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-August-19, 09:04, said:

But what Trump promised was to bring back coal jobs. Revising the industry was supposed to be the means to that end, not the goal itself.

But those of us who understand economics knew that this was something he couldn't come through on. All the policies he's been pushing for about relaxing industry regulations, reducing offshoring, etc. will not actually create many jobs here. They might help the businesses, and thus the 1-percenters who own them, but it won't flow down to the middle class workers who have seen their jobs erode in the last generation. This erosion was not because the businesses were failing, it was because technology made many of them redundant.

Life imitating art.

https://www.bing.com...9D75E&FORM=VIRE

[RedSpawn]

A picture is worth 1,000 words and this political cartoon captures our current ballot box dilemmas.

[RedSpawn]

cherdano, on 2016-September-28, 17:21, said:

I'll just try once to argue this point.

Trump launched his political career by giving prominence to an obviously racially charged conspiracy theory about the first black US president. He launched his primary campaign with an idea utterly ridiculous (build a wall to protect the US from Mexico from illegal immigrants, at a time when the net immigration from Mexico is negative, and when most of the illegal immigrants enter the US legally) - so utterly ridiculous that anyone who likes it must have a highly distorted world view.
White supremacist groups are genuinely excited about the Trump candidacy, and for good reason. Obviously Trump knew what he was doing when he initially refused to disavow support from David Duke, and then later only did so grudgingly.
Trump has frequently retweeted posts from supremacist twitter accounts (some obviously so), including an obviously anti-semitic one about Hillary. His son (and one of the closest campaign advisors) has retweeted the white supremacist's most popular meme, compared immigrants to poisoned skittles, and thinks that immigration in Europe will lead to a rape epidemic.
Jewish journalists have always been getting their unfair share of anti-semitic email and comments and twitter replies, but very many of them mention that they see A LOT MORE since the Trump campaign became prominent, and many have also said that they have started to encounter anti-semitism in real life (which before Trump they only knew from trips outside the US).
Obviously, Trump himself is highly misogynistic - and not just normal rich-70-year-old-guy-misogynistic, much worse than that.

It's also clear that many of his supporters like Trump not despite all of the above, but because of the above.

It is clear that Trump has emboldened racists, anti-semites, misogynists, etc., and that they enthusiastically support him. It is genuinely worrisome. I don't know what percentage of Trump supporters they make up, but I don't think it is a negligeable number.

Excellent response in Trumpality which further confirms barmar assertions that the North won the military war in the Civil War, but the South appears to have won the culture war. The election of Trump could be more than an effective and well-timed appeal to the often forgotten and overlooked Rust Belt voter. It could also be a disturbing, yet effective and well-timed appeal to Make America Hate Again.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-18, 11:22, said:

Name your "White Elephants".

Another white elephant -- talking about corruption among the global special interests in the United Nations and saying, "Ummmm, no more. Not on my watch will they be partying at the U.S. taxpayer's expense."

http://constitution....partyers-video/

[RedSpawn]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-25, 09:28, said:

Agreed.

It makes me wonder is there some global pact where we seemingly "relax" the enforcement our immigration laws as a result of the persisting war theatre and all of the destabilization we do across the world.

Qualification: I know the media has released statistics showing that deportation is on the rise under the Trump administration but then CNN contests that.

https://www.vox.com/...tion-statistics
http://www.cnn.com/2...slow/index.html

Hmmmm. . .

Interesting link talking about immigration

http://www.globaliss...537/immigration

And so who will be the next underclass that American prosperity and business enterprise will be built upon? If history doesn't repeat itself, at least it rhymes.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-18, 11:22, said:

Name your "White Elephants".

Another white elephant. . .

https://www.reuters....r-idUSKBN1AB0DR
http://www.ipwatchdo...perty/id=86922/

I have to say that despite Trump's epic fail on Charlottesville, has his approach on:

• protecting intellectual property rights in the global sphere; and
• reviewing/revising/resetting international trade relations with Mexico and China garnered any press attention in July 2017 and August 2017?

If not, WHY NOT?

Quote

The United States has for many years been facing a very serious problem. China’s industrial policies and other practices reportedly have forced the transfer of vital U.S. technology to Chinese companies. We will engage in a thorough investigation and, if needed, take action to preserve the future of U.S. industry. Potentially millions of jobs are at stake for the current and future generations. This will be one of USTR’s highest priorities, and we will report back to the President as soon as possible.

This is a hot topic given that the populace is very concerned about how global special interests are gutting manufacturing jobs and decimating the middle class.

Also, maybe I have been under the radar, but I didn't realize that NAFTA was being renegotiated and/or reexamined in August 2017.

Let's see if the mainstream media deems this international strategy newsworthy.

Trump needs to be careful as China, our largest foreign debt holder, is sitting on a cool ONE TRILLION of U.S. Treasury securities.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2015-August-17, 09:11, said:

Here is the give and take with Donald Trump during the first Republican debate. The question was about donations.



Added to President Carter's recent statement that America is now an oligarchy one has to wonder if democracy in America has been Trumped?

All political roads in America lead to either oligarchy or plutocracy.

http://www.differenc...-vs-plutocracy/

Either way, only well crafted and machine-gun paced propaganda will keep the masses unconscious to this reality.

[RedSpawn]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-August-13, 10:03, said:

Middle-finger or last gasp? The gap between rich, land-owning corporatists and the electoral masses has never been greater or in greater numbers. A popular revolution keeps getting stayed by, as you mention, constant barrages of ancillary, unrelated or diversionary information. OUAT, only the newspapers needed to be controlled but now, in the (dis)information age, keeping one's head above water is as difficult as in the economic forum. The American Dream now only relates to those willing to climb into the swamp and mingle with the dwellers there in.

VERY TRUE. . .

[RedSpawn]

https://www.washingt...m=.67c805153cf2

https://www.washingt...m=.5c177580fa2f

http://www.businessi...an-again-2017-5 ===> Mentions how Afghanistan is a $$$$ (debt) and death trap.

So now we have a shifting U.S. military strategy on Afghanistan and a reason to increase our annual military spending. . .

https://www.usatoday...stan/584506001/ ===> Trump to provide an update on Afghanistan strategy on 08/21.

https://www.usatoday...tize/548004001/ ===> Hiring 5,500 PRIVATE contractors for the Afghanistan "restructure" -- this has all of the makings of cronyism. I can already hear the pigs squealing at the graft and corruption trough.

https://www.usatoday...ates/104389448/ ===> Prince, the author of this editorial, has a conflict of interest as he has a vested interest in the Afghanistan restructure by providing logistics as a private contractor for the Africa/South Asia portion of this mission. He makes a seductive cost-savings value proposition as the basis for expanding our presence in Afghanistan but fails to directly acknowledge how he profits from our expansion into the area. Typical D.C. politics.

The Pentagon who is leading this effort is acting shady....Trump has got to do his due diligence and homework.

[Al_U_Card]

Be it Castro and the casinos in Havana (sugar too) or the Taliban and restricting opium, wherever the money is, just point the military and pull the trigger.
We have alt-left and alt-right but in an alt-reality, JFK survived and was followed by his brothers with peace in Vietnam, the Middle-east and a strong Russian ally, the Chinese didn't stand a chance...

[Winstonm]

Perhaps this helps explain Trump's reluctance to disagree with Putin and Russian interests.

Quote

Self-described white nationalist Matthew Heimbach, who said he identifies as a member of the alt-right, has praised Putin's Russia as "the axis for nationalists."

“I really believe that Russia is the leader of the free world right now," Heimbach told Business Insider in a recent interview. "Putin is supporting nationalists around the world and building an anti-globalist alliance, while promoting traditional values and self-determination."

[kenberg]

Every war is different, I start by acknowledging that. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn from history.

Imo, a big part of what went wrong in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people If I understand the situation correctly, the Afghanistan government does not have the support of the Afghan people. It seems impossible to stabilize a country if the enlivenment i government (spell checker apparently caught but misguessed whatever misspelling I committed) not supported by the people. I am not as opposed to the use of military force as some are, but the military should not be asked to do the impossible. I am more than willing to learn why I don't properly understand the situation.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2017-August-22, 07:39, said:

Every war is different, I start by acknowledging that. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn from history.

Imo, a big part of what went wrong in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people If I understand the situation correctly, the Afghanistan government does not have the support of the Afghan people. It seems impossible to stabilize a country if the enlivenment is not supported by the people. I am not as opposed to the use of military force as some are, but the military should not be asked to do the impossible. I am more than willing to learn why I don't properly understand the situation.

The history of that part of the world is quite edifying. Even Alexander the Great gave up on them quickly.
A military is able to:
-combat an enemy military
-oppress an "enemy" (including one's one country)
-provide support to the forces of law and order
-provide manpower and expertise in times of need
-intimidate adversaries

JFK, in the early 50's. wrote a cogent treatise on the French Indochina situation and concluded that no amount of force could defeat an enemy that was the people. The same situation would appear to apply in Afghanistan.

[RedSpawn]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-August-22, 08:21, said:

The history of that part of the world is quite edifying. Even Alexander the Great gave up on them quickly.
A military is able to:
-combat an enemy military
-oppress an "enemy" (including one's one country)
-provide support to the forces of law and order
-provide manpower and expertise in times of need
-intimidate adversaries

JFK, in the early 50's. wrote a cogent treatise on the French Indochina situation and concluded that no amount of force could defeat an enemy that was the people. The same situation would appear to apply in Afghanistan.

Cogently said as usual.

http://www.wbur.org/...-in-afghanistan

Also, why are we privatizing the Afghanistan War with 5,500 profiteers, I mean, private contractors, but socializing the war losses of:

• Disability,
• Death,
• Disease,
• Debt, and
• Destruction

to John Q. Public?

Quote

Wall Street Journal: The MacArthur Model for Afghanistan — "Afghanistan is an expensive disaster for America. The Pentagon has already consumed $828 billion on the war, and taxpayers will be liable for trillions more in veterans’ health-care costs for decades to come. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died there, with more than 20,000 wounded in action. For all that effort, Afghanistan is failing. The terrorist cohort consistently gains control of more territory, including key economic arteries. It’s time for President Trump to fix our approach to Afghanistan in five ways."

[Al_U_Card]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-22, 09:30, said:

Cogently said as usual.

http://www.wbur.org/...-in-afghanistan

Also, why are we privatizing the Afghanistan War with 5,500 profiteers, I mean, private contractors, but socializing the war losses of:

• Disability,
• Death,
• Disease,
• Debt, and
• Destruction

to John Q. Public?

It work(s)ed for the financial sector, so why not the Armed Forces? I expect that those 5,500 are both corporations (people?) and donors to campaigns, one way or the other. Cui bono.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2017-August-22, 07:39, said:

Every war is different, I start by acknowledging that. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn from history.

Imo, a big part of what went wrong in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people If I understand the situation correctly, the Afghanistan government does not have the support of the Afghan people. It seems impossible to stabilize a country if the enlivenment i government (spell checker apparently caught but misguessed whatever misspelling I committed) not supported by the people. I am not as opposed to the use of military force as some are, but the military should not be asked to do the impossible. I am more than willing to learn why I don't properly understand the situation.

I am in the same boat with you. It is a reason I enjoyed reading The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew Bacevich as he wrote at length about the limits of what our military can accomplish.

[mike777]

kenberg, on 2017-August-22, 07:39, said:

Every war is different, I start by acknowledging that. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn from history.

Imo, a big part of what went wrong in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people If I understand the situation correctly, the Afghanistan government does not have the support of the Afghan people. It seems impossible to stabilize a country if the enlivenment i government (spell checker apparently caught but misguessed whatever misspelling I committed) not supported by the people. I am not as opposed to the use of military force as some are, but the military should not be asked to do the impossible. I am more than willing to learn why I don't properly understand the situation.

It does seem possible to do this...when I look at history what it takes it a bloody, ruthless war, call it a bloody civil war. Often the extreme answer may be the only answer, assimilate or be exterminated or face endless conflict.

See Russia, See China, See America, see Vietnam.

We can look to Afghanistan and see what....endless conflict going on century after century..

The argument regarding Afghanistan seems to be we fight them there or we fight them here. The problem is many reject this binary choice but don't seem to persuade enough people of a viable third option.

I suppose many look to Vietnam as the answer....we stopped fighting...one side won and we did not have to fight them on the beaches of California.....If we just go home we wont have to fight them in NY.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2017-August-22, 11:08, said:

It does seem possible to do this...when I look at history what it takes it a bloody, ruthless war, call it a bloody civil war. Often the extreme answer may be the only answer, assimilate or be exterminated or face endless conflict.

See Russia, See China, See America, see Vietnam.

We can look to Afghanistan and see what....endless conflict going on century after century..

The argument regarding Afghanistan seems to be we fight them there or we fight them here. The problem is many reject this binary choice but don't seem to persuade enough people of a viable third option.

I suppose many look to Vietnam as the answer....we stopped fighting...one side won and we did not have to fight them on the beaches of California.....If we just go home we wont have to fight them in NY.

The only way to "win" the war on terror. Stop terrorizing the breeding grounds of reprisal. Declare amnesty for all "combattants" and withdraw all personnel (military and covert) from that part of the world. Impossible to go "too far" in this approach. Every further such step would be one in the right direction. Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-August-22, 11:40, said:

The only way to "win" the war on terror. Stop terrorizing the breeding grounds of reprisal. Declare amnesty for all "combattants" and withdraw all personnel (military and covert) from that part of the world. Impossible to go "too far" in this approach. Every further such step would be one in the right direction. Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

ok but what part of the world do we withdraw from? Asia and Africa...?? You are very vague..