America, get a grip and take a breath!

ETA: At the risk of being as "star-crossed" as Cassandra, I am re-submitting the essay below for your consideration or re-consideration. I never dreamt it would play out this soon after inauguration, but here we are: The electorate has protested, federal courts have been doing their job, the Dow Jones has plunged, we've had an acting Attorney General (and perhaps an ICE offical) has refused to do the bidding of the President, etc. and the Republic stands, all as predicted below.

America, get a grip and take a breath!

Between the Chanukkahristmaswanzaa and December 31, while the hours of darkness are beginning to lower, comes a pause in the annual celebrations that is known as the grown ups' hour (deepest apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow).

Since Trump won the Presidency, mainstream media's hair has been on fire, as it strives to panic the populace into believing that a Trump administration will end of the world as we we know it. Meanwhile, the same people who've been "schooling" me about how powerless President Obama allegedly is have been HennyPennying as though President Trump will be--nay, is--as omnipotent as they claim President Obama is powerless. And, of course, omnipotent President Trump wants to do only terrible things. (While we're on the subject, hysteria over a President-Elect's expressing an opinion about a UN resolution is media hair on fire, not having "two Presidents at the same time.")

I solemnly promise: We will have plenty of time--and probably reason--to panic pointlessly about Trump after his inauguration (pointlessly, because we don't have impeachment powers). For now, though, for the love of whatever passes for sanity in the U.S., take a breath. Or, as they said sensibly across the pond during World War II, with archetypcal British understatement through archetypally stiff upper British lips, "Keep calm and carry on." After all, it was no shock that either Trump or Hillary was going to win in November, was it? (While this bit may indeed be a surprise to some, it's also true: a Hillary win may have been even worse for the left--and therefore for the nation and the world--than a Trump win.) In any case, I will share some thoughts that may aid in keeping calm, at least until Inauguration Day:

First, Trump is not the be all and end all of Republicans; the Presidency is not the be all and end all of the federal government (as we were told every time anyone complained about President Obama); the federal government is not the be all and end all of governments within the U.S.; and all the governments in the world combined are not the be all and end all of things that can make your life better or worse.

Second, Trump will be checked in many ways. Republicans will be something of a check on Trump (for good or ill). The fate of all politicians, pundits, strategists, hangers on, etc. depends upon the reputation and fortunes of their own political Party. And, to be fair, many of them are grateful to their own Party. Likely, it was for that reason that it was Republicans, not Democrats, who got Nixon to stop stonewalling and resign; and it was Democrats, not Republicans who made sure that the ironically-named Weiner would not be sending any more dick pics from the Capitol bym. IMO, Republicans are not going to let Trump venture but so far into Bizarro World. (That's the good news. The bad news is that Trump did promise some good things while campaigning; but someone(s) seem(s) to be changing his views about those issues to the standard rightist positions.)

Next, our government has three co-equal branches and various other checks and balances, both legal and practical. In the White House itself, Trump will have both White House counsel and personal counsel, most likely smart, experienced lawyers with good reputations. He will also have other professional advisors, including Chief of Staff Reince Preibus, who just put a chunk of his life into taking the Republican Party from "autopsy" to more powerful than ever. I doubt that anagram man will just stand by if Trump seems about to undo all that. There will also be Cabinet Secretaries, generals, economists, etc. (both the good news and the bad news).

Then, Congress has explicit Constitutional power to impeach, and therefore implicit power to oversee the Executive branch and the Judicial branch. Already, Republican members of Congress have been saying publicly that one of their first priorities will be Article I powers. IOW, they claim that their first priority is ensuring that Trump (for one) will not be a Unitary Executive. Even if they do not follow through, there's only so much that even a Unitary Executive can do without Congress. (For example: http://caucus99percent.com/content/did-obama-draw-red-line-syrian-sand-d...) I'm guessing Trump has already heard quite a lot about everything in this paragraph, including impeachment, especially from Ryan, McConnell and Priebus. (BTW, let's see if Congressional Democrats are as strong when in the minority as Republicans have been, or if Democrats will do their usual: pretending helplessness, whether in the majority or the minority.)

Then, there is the weakest branch--and the most powerful. The Judicial Branch cannot act on its own initiative: It must wait until someone sues and the lawsuit meets requirements of standing, mootness, etc. And then, it can only decide the case before it. In those respects, it is weak. But, once all that happens, it can declare unconstitutional anything that any state government and any other branch of the federal government has done that is not consistent with the federal Constitution. The SCOTUS can also overrule its own prior decisions. All that ain't nothin.' And, of course, the massive bureaucracy of all three branches grinds along relentlessly, no matter who is in the Oval Office. Other nations, even reactions of the stock market, will check Trump, too.

Please don't misunderstand: I expect that Trump will be, at best, a typical conservative President, only more of an embarrassment than even Dimson. And I abhor even the best case I anticipate. But, my hair is not on fire. I firmly believe that the world and the nation will survive Trump, just as they survived over thirty-five years of Obama, Dimson, Bubba, Poppy and Ronnie.

Meanwhile, what has your Governor and state legislature been doing for you lately--and what have you done about it? Are votes in your state on paper ballots that are hand-counted? Insurance companies and other businesses in your state getting regulated satisfactorily? Your state reps and state senators doing a great job, passing good laws and only good laws? Is your city or town hall responsive? Drinking water healthful? How about public and (gulp) charter schools? Are your local taxes fair, or is Granny's home getting taxed more than the local Hyatt? Trash getting picked up? Streets getting cleaned and plowed? Potholes fixed? Does your power company simply get away with outages during summer months and storms? Are trees getting planted around your city or town, as well as in public parks? Any corruption in city hall or the town council? How do you know? How about you? Are you doing all you can to improve or maintain your health and the quality of your own life and of those about whom you care? Are you doing all you can to better the lives of the 90%? If so, well done, you! Many of us probably are not. I, for one, am certain that I can do better as to every issue I've mentioned in this essay.

As a citizenry and as individual humans, especially the "left of the left," we have 99 problems. While Trump is certainly one of them, he's far from the only one. He may not even be the biggest one. The task confronting the left as a citizen constituency is especially huge. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/227928#comment-227928 Calm down. Laser focus on what you can do to improve your life, the lives of your loved ones, and the lives of the 90%. How might you and I might contribute most effectively? Those are the things that should have our hair on fire!


Ena Squire-Brown leaving her then recently-bombed home to marry R.A.F. officer J.C. Martin in 1940

Unidentified London homemakers during the blitz
up
36 users have voted.

Comments

Lookout's picture

they won't think or focus on the important issues.

The obvious outcome of the election is the blatant purchase of the government by Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Koch bros, private prisons and schools, and now T-rump inc. as prez.

The difference is Hellery would have been more covert in her approach (like Obummer). She would have received an email from her handlers telling her who should be in her cabinet just like Obomba got from Citigroup.

We should treat each day like it is one of our last. It may well be..due to nonexistent climate change. Something already in the cards...I mean atmosphere.

up
26 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

issue is is blatant vs. covert. IMO, that difference certainly does not warrant all the geschrei-ing to which we have been subjected since the election. To the contrary, I tend to prefer stuff that is out in the open.

up
14 users have voted.

government policy since shortly after WW2. (It also sells advertising in the media.) Before there were the horrid Dulles brothers there was Dean Acheson who helped formulate the Truman Doctrine and then as Secretary of State during Truman's elected term, helped implement it. It was Acheson above all others who persuaded Truman to wage war in Korea.

I look for Trump to continue to promote global monopoly capital worldwide as has Obama with the continued lowering of pay and other compensation for the majority and unabated flow of extorted profit flowing to the top 10%.

I also look for Trump to push to privatize our millions of acres of public land in the western states, one thing Obama didn't do. Obama did little to properly manage our heritage but he didn't sell it off. This might be one issue to unite prole right and left because a lot of hunting, fishing, and ATV recreation takes place on public land and environmentalists know that even half-assed federal management is better than private ownership.

up
26 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

you are correct. As stated, I did not intend this essay to indicate that I have high expectations of Trump. I do expect him to behave as a coarse buffoon who will set a horrific example for young uns and embarrass us on the international stage, in addition to doing the wretched things conservatives do.

up
14 users have voted.

well be a plus because leaders of other countries just might not want to be identified with a loud mouthed loutish bully. Image still counts in politics and his deviation from standards of conduct expected of national leaders may give cover for those in control of other countries who don't want to be identified with him and his policies..

up
17 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Redstella's picture

We needed that. I am of your mind, not to panic until needed. Heard about a friend who rented an apartment in Oaxaca Mexico so they could have an escape route. Am waiting to hear the full story. For myself, I expect things will stumble along as before. Big deal, is whether we continue to involve ourselves in foreign wars. Trump, at least on the campaign trail, was against that. We will see, eh?

And, to my mind, at least we don't have Hillary!

up
16 users have voted.

Mexico will supposedly pay for? Wacko

(You're most welcome.)

up
5 users have voted.
Redstella's picture

What side do we want to be on that wall?

up
6 users have voted.

I also like knowing I can find what I want in U.S. supermarkets.

But, as a place to visit, especially when it's cold here? Sign me up, por favor!

up
3 users have voted.

You read my mind, and wrote my thoughts better than I could've written them.

I lived in London for years, there was a certain calmness, no matter how difficult a situation, which I so admired in my British friends. Coal strike - no electricity for 3 days a week, use candles. It was during "the troubles" - so "be careful" was instead of "take care." No matter how angry friends were with Margaret Thatcher, there was never the venom I hear around me in the States today.

One thought to add to this wonderful essay: think Billy Clinton is keeping the anger boiling cuz he's desperate about not being back in the White House. As confused as he is, also don't think he wanted Shrillary to win. As Redstellla said, at least we are rid of them, their sycophants, and have the possibility, no matter how limited, of things working out for all of us. Maybe, just maybe.

up
13 users have voted.

up
4 users have voted.

IRL, I refer to Trump as "President-Elect Not Hillary" and this, too, comforts me. I don't think Hillary would be one bit better than any other warmongering neocon and she is as "deplorable" a bigot as anyone, just more hypocritical. Also...

http://caucus99percent.com/comment/228017#comment-228017

up
5 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

I know you made a bundle --billions in today's dollars when you sold your corn hybridization business to DuPont.

You've been holding out on us.

up
7 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

Elena Kagan as the New Democrat Obama administration's Solicitor General: http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/05/19/elena-kagan-and-monsanto/

Elena Kagan as New DemocratObama's Supreme Court appointee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr in the January 1849 issue of his journal, Les Guêpes (“The Wasps”). Wink

I once posted here about wishing I had looked into Wallace's post-1948 record before choosing to post under his name at Kos. Or at least having been diligent enough to look up his middle initial, so I could sign each of my posts "HAW!" However, I did neither.

When I chose his name at Kos, I knew that he had become very, very wealthy post-1948. That didn't bother me: I see nothing wrong with making money, only in being greedy and/or spending foolishly or selfishly. What I didn't know when I chose to post under his name was that he also got more conservative post-1948.

I'd look for my prior post here on the subject, except I've concluded that JtC somehow knew I would sign up here one day and created a search feature that would thumb its nose at me every time I tried to use it.

Some may consider that comment paranoid. I consider it insightful. Wacko

up
9 users have voted.

corporatist vote on the Supreme Court if her vote were needed.

up
12 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, I thought both parts of it were decided incorrectly, The first part held that the government could tax you unless you bought a designated product from private vendors. IMO, that was a horrific decision. All the Democratic appointees on the SCOTUS bench voted for that one, joined only from the right of the bench by Chief Justice Roberts.

The second part decided that Congress could not withhold from a given state all federal monies for Medicaid if that state did not go along with the Medicaid expansion portion of Obamacare. I have no idea why Congress can't use its Article I spending power to put whatever conditions it wishes on receipt by a state of federal monies. So, I thought that, too, was a horrific decision. On that part of the decision, the votes were from the five Republican appointees, plus Breyer and Kagan. Their votes were not needed, but they did support the right of the bench anyway.

On the bright side, despite having said that there is no Constitutional right to equal marriage, Kagan did vote with the left of the bench and Justice Kennedy in the Windsor case.

I will be interested to see what happens to Kagan when Ginsburg is no longer on the bench.

up
7 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

A truly evil corporation.

I've been watching this documentary(s), Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the United States". (12 episodes) You may have seen it as it came out first in 2012. He devotes in part, a good deal of discussion and old footage about Henry Wallace. How disturbing to find out that he was shafted by the dem when running for the fourth term as FDR's veep. What a different world we would be in now if that ass, Hannagen(sp) had not screwed him out of it, replacing him with Truman instead.

Towards the end of Stone's review of Wallace's life he points out how he returned to his farm where he'd been hybridizing corn as a hobby for years. It was in the mid-sixties when he sold his patents to Dupont. I doubt he'd have ever done something like that had he known what a monster Monsanto would become.

If you haven't seen it, you should. It's right up your alley.

up
9 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

And, yes, I love that kind of things, if done by someone(s) intelligent; and I usually agree with Stone, for the most part.

I don't really prefer Monsanto. I was only trying to make a point that New Democrats are as in bed with corporations as anyone.

We may have had a different world if Wallace had succeeded FDR, or Wallace may have been assassinated or sold out. We'll never know, much as we will never know what life would have been like after President RFK.

up
4 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

Yep. Netflix is where I found it. I had to ask myself- Why Was I Not Informed- when this was released.

Assassinated? Very possibly. I think he had the courage of his convictions and would not have sold out. He carried on promoting his sense of social equality in politics long after he was out of office and resigned to federal positions. In watching it unfold in Stone's documentary, I was surprised that FDR was seemingly unaware that Wallace was being rail-roaded. Was he keen on the idea?

Well, again-- we'll never know.

up
2 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

I also know FDR was very practical, always with one eye on the ballot box. And, let's not forget: When he ran for his fourth term, he was very, very ill. I don't know if that affected his choice of VP. FDR's wiki says Wallace had been "erratic" as VP. I have no idea what that might mean.

I don't discount Wallace changing once he became President. It's a heady trip. Most likely, he would have wanted to be re-elected. I am pretty set in my ways, principles, etc. Offer me four years as POTUS and I just might become more pliant.

up
3 users have voted.
Pricknick's picture

I've noticed an uptick on idiots interested in having safe rooms installed in their homes. Bomb shelters too. I've already done more than a handful of root cellar type structures for those who want to put survival gear and food away for the end of times.
Ka-ching!

up
12 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

featheredsprite's picture

up
5 users have voted.

Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.

Yellerdog's picture

Bomb and catastrophe shelters. You lock yourself in and die more slowly or you eventually come out because you run out of food and die from radiation anyway. Or someone with guns comes and takes what you have.

I once lived on the waterfront directly across from the Puget Sound Naval shipyard at Bremerton WA. I could hear when the ships play colors at sunset and with binoculars clearly see workers and sailors going about on whatever on whatever nuclear carrier was in port. You could motor along five hundred feet away in a boat and wave at everybody. It occurred to me that I had reached ground zero and there was nothing to worry about. The flash of a nuclear weapon going off a half mile away would would have returned me to star stuff before I felt a thing. It was an interesting thought.

Would you rather live though the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse or die instantly and painlessly? From what I've read about Japan which were much smaller weapons I would would gladly accept the former.

up
4 users have voted.

Maybe the obvious problems will be personified by Trump, whereas they would be easier to bullshit around with Hillary because she will agree with us on what the problem is, but triangulate away any effectiveness. Trump's bullshit is so offensive and direct, that it's easier for everyone to see that we've hit bottom with him. Denying science in the face of more Katrinas will only make Trump's bullshit more obvious.

up
13 users have voted.

given credence on the (alleged) left to right wing economic initiatives. And because they don't push back against Republican ideas as they used to, those ideas have become the norm in the U.S. Moreover, to distinguish themselves from New Democrats, Republicans have had to go even further right than they were when St. Ronnie first took office. (New Democrat Obama himself said his policies were those of a moderate 1980s Republican.) These are a couple of the reasons why I believe that voting for DINOs is the greater, not the lesser, of two evils.

Too bad all our choices stink for one reason or another.

up
17 users have voted.

msm is so awful or that so many people are so gullible, though.

I guess this is the flip side of so many buying guns and ammo whenever a Democrat is elected President. Meanwhile, our Congressional Quislings won't enact the teensiest of restrictions on gun purchases, even those with which about 80% of the population agrees.

up
8 users have voted.

said about the MSM in 1970.

"The tongue of truth is the true tongue of America, and it could not be found in the Daily Heralds since the voice therein was a controlled voice, wickedly opinionated, and directed at gullible."

Things got worse before they got worse didn't they?

up
15 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Corso poetically and by me in very pedestrian prose.

On your second point, yes; and I know better than ever to say "At least, it can't can't get worse." Not only can it,but it often does. Our msm has become far more of a shield against truth than a revealer of truth. It's dangerous. If nothing else, the role of the msm in the the run up to invading Iraq should have proven that to the American public, bless its heart. Yet, it still falls under the spell of the msm.

up
10 users have voted.

and from the outcry, it's begun to hurt. Aren't there studies showing that certain age groups rely on social media and the internet sites to get their information? Sure there are inaccuracies and false leads and deliberate manipulation from those in charge, but the sheer volume seems to overwhelm our overlords.

up
9 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

There's also a vicious cycle element. I'll explain.

As I am sure you know, at one time, newspapers had their own correspondents in many countries and many reporters in the US reporting news from police stations, courthouses, state houses, etc. Their reporters also did investigative journalism, etc. For the most part, people on the internet don't do any of that that. They opine/bloviate about the information they cull from mainstream media, which means all they know is what they read in the funny papers. (That was supposed to be something of a pun, but it didn't quite make it.) Thirty very important things could be happening on a given day, but, if msm doesn't report something, they don't know it exists because all they do is spin stuff they got from the msm. (That seems muddled. I hope you understand what I mean. If not, let me know.)

Also, not everyone on social media is meticulous. In fact, some of them are pretty doggone sloppy--and uninformed. For example, I remember several posters here repeating that Sanders had been threatened with loss of a committee chair. Well, only the majority gets to name committee chairs and Democrats were in the minority. I consider that sloppy and uninformed, especially for someone purporting to be a political commentator.

Anyway....as time passed, papers had stringers, rather than correspondents. Their staffs shrunk in other areas, too. Investigative reporting was seen more in fiction, on TV and in films, than it was in real life. And, as their incomes dwindled due to the internet, the quality of their staffs went down. On top of that, they have to race to put stories on the net. So, overall, I think we are in a worse place without a healthy msm. However, given how corrupt the msm has become, I can't mourn much. On the other hand, I don't think anything is filling the gap left by their now anemic condition.

up
3 users have voted.

even though i'm an old lady i can see that the "kids" are the new "public" and they get their info from the net, so the only thing we have to worry about is if and when the ptb turn it off...

and i've read somewhere that can't be done any more

up
2 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.
featheredsprite's picture

The stock market is due to crash in the next year or maybe a little later. Trump didn't cause it and he can't stop it.

We are frequently being warned of rampant inflation but I think that our economic system is idiopathically deflationary. In either case, Trump didn't cause it and he can't stop it.

Trump will not go to war with Russia. A lot of tinhorn leaders in the world play tough guys. Putin is one. And he has long range missiles. And Russia has more gold than the US does. Let sleeping bears lie.

Trump will not put Muslims into concentration camps. Obama already had a Muslim registry and reportedly erased it and fully dismantled it after Hillary lost the election. Erecting a new registry would be a lot of hard work. Republicans don't like hard work.

Some of the infrastructure might actually get repaired. Hallelujah!

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Will we be able to discern any difference from what we have now?

And, actually, Hills would have been more dangerous.

up
7 users have voted.

Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.

Pluto's Republic's picture

…I wouldn't bet against the house. The nations of the world allow the Feds to print as much money as they want by continuing to use the currency for international trade. It's trickle up via inflation. What's not to like when you are at the top?

Trump will not go to war with Russia. A lot of tinhorn leaders in the world play tough guys. Putin is one. And he has long range missiles. And Russia has more gold than the US does. Let sleeping bears lie.

Russia also has a lot more nuclear missiles of better quality than the US and none of them are stationary. They are in constant motion.

BTW, can you give me an example of Putin being a tinhorn leader and playing the tough guy? Just one will do. I'm taking a survey.

up
6 users have voted.

I have no idea where you get the idea that

Russia also has a lot more nuclear missiles of better quality than the US and none of them are stationary.

The START agreement allows Russia and the US an equal number of launchers (strategic missiles and long range bombers) and warheads. The Russians may be exceeding the limit a bit by delaying the removal of some systems. Generally, you'd have to go to a conservative outlet for an argument that the difference amounts to a significant advantage. I think it's more common to see it as an indication of Russian displeasure at a number of US activities including abrogation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

Some Russian ICBMs are mobile. Others are silo based. A larger portion of US launchers are submarine based. The US has never felt the need to deploy mobile ICBMs.

Both the US and Russia are upgrading their nuclear weapons and launchers. Each have advantages and disadvantages.

up
1 user has voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

Defense contractor news sites and open source intelligence discuss comparisons at times. Agree, there are stationary silos, or strategic "targets." But Russia's mobile multi-launcher strategies and more modern warhead development seem to be at peak interest among weapons industry people these days. Also discussed is Russia's low profile posture that features some fixed "targets" while the bulk of their offense is invisible and unknown in the dark forests across their vast continent. This yields a superior second strike capability. Russians speak of mobile weapons as a cultural component. Their recent national nuclear drills feature dachas and summer gardens away from cities and thoughtful population migrations with millions of participants with roles to play. The US defense strategy provides no civilian preparation or planning. Those cultural difference may convey a perception of Russia's overall strategic advantage.

up
4 users have voted.

The Russians have been doing everything short of sinking a US carrier to tell us we are moving in a very dangerous direction. (I put the civil defense drills in this category.) We promised Warsaw Pact countries would remain a buffer outside of NATO. There are now countries that were part of the USSR in NATO. The US contributed cash and advice to the people who removed the elected head of the Ukraine. Syria was an eastern Med base for Soviet, then Russian, naval vessels for decades. The popular outrage against Assad turned violent almost immediately after he rejected a gas pipeline that was not in Russia's interest.

Consistently, the US uses the violent responses to the violence we have stirred up and sometimes initiated as justification for escalation and the demonization of Russia. I don't think the US wants a shooting war with Russia. I think they find our actions something close to an existential threat in ways most Americans can't imagine. This environment is a recipe for disaster.

I hope people will keep in mind that these confrontations are occurring in places like Lithuania and the Black Sea near Crimea, not off Cuba or in Mexico.

up
2 users have voted.
Yellerdog's picture

I just looked this up for a comment last night so the other side and it's too late to do it now. E-mail me if you have to have the link.

The US and Russia have roughly the same amount of weapons which is 6500. Under Obama the US has overhauled and upgraded all active weapons and there is and additional $1 trillion budgeted over the next 30 years to continue modernization and development. However there is also and another start reduction coming up soon and I don't remember the numbers. I think each side give up another 1000 or so. Anyway it's still enough to split the Earth so who care.

Despite the Trump blather about the weapons it has already happened under Obama and very few noticed. Again. I'll hunt the site tomorrow if you send a request.

A final thought. The Trumped up new 350 ship navy has also already been approved. It's neither a Trump program nor is it new. In fact I was reading last night about these new mini-aircraft carriers that just haul a few helicopters and Ospreys for close combat support of the Marines but can also be outfitted with cruise or anti-ship missiles. And why isn't it a good thing to buy F-35s and AF-1 cheaper if he can pull it off?

up
2 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

…and heard Obama's proposal for modernizing the current nuclear weapons, many of which are surprisingly old. There's hardly a need to ask for approval for weapons enhancements. Planes that don't perform are another matter. Although any military plane development is a prized project for wealth distribution via outside sales. Everyone who facilitates the chain of legislation gets a potential piece of the action. The only thing I heard about Trump re: planes is that he balked at the cost of a new Air Force One and sent Boeing shares into a flat spin.

The nuclear weapons reference to Russia's "more" may refer to megatons rather than numbers of missiles. Thanks for the numbers that you recall. I know where to find it, plus I want to revisit my own sources now that the US is beefing up to keep up. I'm not certain what tactical use "beefed up" brings, though. The missiles not headed to military targets will be heading toward civilian targets. Do a few more megatons matter when blowing away cities like Seattle?

As for the mini-carriers, I guess they're all the rage now and will come in handy for mini-invasions of under-armed nations. As I recall, Russia was just about to take delivery of two French mini-carriers the same April that the State Department neocons sponsored the overthrow Ukraine's democratically elected government. EU sanctions blocked France's transfer to Russia and the ships were sold to Egypt instead. Mini-carriers will likely come in handy when the US begins to destablize the nations of Africa, topple their governments, and privatize their oil and mineral resources — all to thwart the rise of China.

up
2 users have voted.

this essay and the earlier one linked to, which somehow i missed, are giving your readers the "emes", the (awful) truth, but with the stipulation that there is a way to live healthily through the coming years

up
2 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.