Trump's Foreign Policy Actions Making People Squirm

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 2:07pm

I caught onto Donald Trump's game early on in the presidential campaign. I'm not bragging, many others did as well, I'm just saying that to set up the next part.

I like watching people squirm.

Not really, not in a bad way.

I've noticed alot of writers, blogs and those who are considered of the left, or even far left, and also many libertarians wherever they fall in that spectrum, give credit to Donald Trump for less belligerent, less "interventionist" foreign policies. I've seen many comments on a number of blogs I visit that Trump is not as bad as Clinton, the neocons hate him, we won't have a war with Russia, no more regime changes, etc. I've seen plenty of writers I respect take a wait and see attitude, somehow giving him the benefit of doubt that we might see some change for the good.

What I saw and heard, early on as I said, was a man who wanted to make America "great" again by building the largest military ever assembled, by escalating an illegal and immoral war OF terror that has been based on lies from the beginning, by threatening Iran (the next step in the imperial neocon process), and by luring Russia and China into the final stage of the New World Order project. I heard a man who wanted to make America great again through U.S. imperialism.

Again, it wasn't just me, many saw through his bullshit regarding his foreign "policies". But it has surprised me how many and who didn't and still haven't. Even now, many are blaming the imperial belligerence on his staff, not on him, saying that maybe they're acting on their own and Trump will somehow change the tune later. Maybe in his tweets at 3 am.

People forget or ignore how America became "great". It was on the backs of slaves and Indians, from the "spoils" of war and imperialism, and the rampage of rich American psychopaths across the planet. America became "great" at the expense of others, their lives, their resources, their countries, and their children. America became great by killing other people and taking their shit, by blackmail, extortion, and murder. America became great based on lies and illusions.

Trump and his "regime" come along and people think it will be different. His "Make America Great Again" slogan would be about focusing on America and not spending trillions on wars and imperialism. America can be Great by building a wall to keep others out and making stuff to sell to others. We don't need imperialism anymore to be the greatest country on earth.

Now he and his regime are threatening Iran, threatening China, threatening Yemen, threatening Russia, threatening Venezuela, threatening the Palestinians and threatening humanity itself. Now those that have been giving him the benefit of the doubt are asking what's going on?

Here's a sample:

"Candidate Trump stressed noninterventionism. President Trump’s hostility toward China and Iran risks unthinkable war.

Will he be a warrior president like his predecessors or curb US aggression? Will he devote more of America’s resources to vital domestic needs or prioritize the nation’s imperial agenda?

Will he be a responsible leader or just another dirty politician? For the most part, his early actions aren’t encouraging."

His early actions aren't "encouraging"? Shit, when he first started opening his mouth on the campaign, he wasn't encouraging.

Now people are squirming. Maybe that's a good thing. First you have to squirm. Then you get angry. Then you try to do something about it.

Where's all the talk about roads and bridges? Where's all the talk about jobs? Where's the anti-interventionism? Ya right.

Tags:

Rant

donald trump

Foreign Policies

Imperialism

Vote

Comments

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 2:13pm

Meet the new boss....

Where's all the talk about roads and bridges? Where's all the talk about jobs? Where's the anti-interventionism? Ya right.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, second verse, same as the first......

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 2:22pm

That band should be

@thanatokephaloides in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

[video:https://youtu.be/ypHOTlvjgxw]

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 2:50am

@thanatokephaloides

@thanatokephaloides

Hey, it worked for Obama, and he, at least, was convincing.

But I think a lot of that was desperate hope - and I'm personally still damn glad that it wasn't the Clintons, because at least people will fight Trump and maybe start thinking about what they can do toward bring democracy to America, (and other de-democratized countries, thanks to American and other corporations/billionaires financially, militarily and otherwise empowered by corrupt politicians for that global hostile corporate/military takeover) now that the already-rigged US elections have been Homeland Secured against oversight and are definitely not an option in electoral change.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 3:57pm

I never understood how anyone imagined

Trump wasn't going to be a belligerent warmonger. When I hear people saying that candidate Truump suggested otherwise, I honestly wonder what they are talking about. This is the guy who said he would "go after their families" and didn't see any point in having nukes if we don't use them. Gee...

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 4:56pm

Same thing with Obama being a warmonger

@CS in AZ he told people that the fight against AQ was in Pakistan not Afghanistan. Which country did he bomb first with his drones.
And Hillary was telling everyone that she was willing to risk a war with Russia by creating a no fly zone over Syria.
And people voted for them anyway.
Including me. I believed his scam the first time he ran. And there were people saying this about him but I didn't listen to them. I was blinded by his bullshit.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 5:40pm

Obama was never anti-war, any more than Trump or Clinton

@snoopydawg

In his famous speech against the Iraq war, he said multiple times "I do not oppose all wars" and gave several examples of good wars: the civil war to end slavery, WWII to stop Hitler, he invoked 9/11 and said that he would personally take up arms to prevent another such attack. In other words, he was willing to kill to stop terrorists. He said he was only against what he called "dumb wars" like Iraq. It was not at all a pacifist or antiwar speech. Far from it.

He was clear as a candidate that as president he would continue the war against "terrorism" and would be aggressive about it. I never understood why anyone expected him to act otherwise either.

He only promised to wage his wars more competently than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Not a high bar, obviously, but after the Bush years that's what a lot of people wanted. Not peace or an end to the wars. We haven't had an actual anti-war candidate in decades. Not even Bernie.

Unfortunately, no one could get anywhere in American politics who suggested actually stopping the Forever Wars that we are now immersed in.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 7:48pm

I agree with you about what he said

@CS in AZ but I think a lot of people only heard him say that he was against the Iraq war and wouldn't do stupid wars and that was why so many people thought he wouldn't be as bad as Bush or Hillary.
This and him saying that he would get the troops out of Iraq and end the war. He was trying to keep them there after Bush' SOFA expired but the Iraqi government wouldn't accept his terms.
Anyone who heard his Nobel peace prize statement would know that he had no intention of being a peaceful president.
And I am still seeing people write that he ended two wars and hasn't started any new ones, even though the Afghanistan war is still going on and there are troops back in Iraq.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 5:17pm

It was the Russian/Putin thing vs Clinton's warmongerness.

@CS in AZ Made it out to be different than it really is. People buy it, people still think the war in Syria is a civil war. I've seen it on here.

Submitted by kakumeiji maru on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 5:53pm

@CS in AZ

@CS in AZ
Wishful thinking, I suppose. Many people indulge in it, even those who ought to know better.

This whole shoddy business is embittering me further against the entire American political system. Let's trash it all. It's all rotten, and nothing good will come of participating in it. The only participation should be for the express purpose of overthrowing it. Just get rid of it and start from scratch.

I don't think I ever expected much if anything of Trump, but in retrospect I probably should have been far more forceful in expressing the opinion that Big Al has expressed, that Trump is just another face of the American Empire. I suppose what we are witnessing is at most a squabble over control of the Imperial Project and over the particular strategy and tactics to be employed in pursuit of the Imperial Project.

Submitted by Lookout on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 3:58pm

a great wall and really great pipelines

and there will be lots of jobs. I was thinking you are in Oregon? Cause they've got a job program coming your way too -
the new Oregon Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline and Jordan Cove Energy Project...it's 16 min, but a pretty interesting piece...you can catch the gist in a couple of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDqpjjkcBjI

Hold on, I predict it's gonna be a ride.

—

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

Submitted by CB on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 5:37pm

Trump will have a tough time out-pipelining Obama

@Lookout
Under Obama's watch, the US constructed enough pipeline to go around the world with a total capacity ten times that of the Keystone XL.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 2:54am

@CB

@CB

I suppose the pipelines are what they plan to replace life with. 'Let them breathe oil'?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 4:48pm

I got a kick out of all the articles blaming him for the

death of the soldier and many civilians during the raid in Yemen. People are saying that obama didn't authorize the raid because he wanted more information and then left it to the next administration. And Trump didn't go to the situation room to make the decision but made it at the dinner table.

Not word about all those drone strikes on weddings, family gatherings or kids out collecting firewood or any of his other bombings that killed innocent people including children.
Do people know where Obama was each time he ordered a drone strike or the CIA did without his knowledge?

The hypocrisy, it's just so damned funny.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by pro left on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 5:20pm

I agree

@snoopydawg Funny and sad as well.

Submitted by CB on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 5:55pm

The US 'Deep State' takes control of the new Executive

Steering Trump Back to Endless War
Well, that didn’t take long, did it? The Trump administration hadn’t even reached its two-week mark when it surrendered a major portion of its independence and fell in behind the reigning Washington orthodoxy. The turning point came at the United Nations Security Council on Thursday when Ambassador Nikki R. Haley blasted Russia for the upsurge of violence in the eastern Ukraine.
...
One Slim Reed

So amid all the bluster and braggadocio, racism and Islamophobia, there was one slim reed to hold onto: Trump seemed to be capable of at least a modicum of realism when it came to one or two trouble spots around the globe.

But then came the post-election back-tracking. On Nov. 18, Trump named Michael Flynn, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his national security adviser even though Flynn is renowned for his fierce anti-Russian views. Two weeks later, he named the no-less-hawkish James Mattis as his Secretary of Defense. At his confirmation hearing, Mattis described Russia as a “principal” threat to U.S. interests and declared that the U.S.-led world order was “under the biggest attacks since World War II from Russia, terrorist groups, and China’s actions in the South China Sea.”

After once predicting that Clinton’s proposal for a Syrian no-fly zone would “end up in World War III,” Trump also vowed to fix “what’s going on in Syria” by building “safe zones … so people can have a chance.” Then, just this past Sunday, he telephoned King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of neighboring Abu Dhabi to obtain their political and financial support.

“The President requested and the King agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen,” a White House statement said, “as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts.” Where Hillary Clinton had called for just one no-fly zone, Trump was now committing to two.
...
Some will blame what’s known as the Deep State. It’s not the President or Congress who rules, they will argue, but a vast sprawl consisting of the Pentagon, the arms industry, and 17 intelligence agencies employing hundreds of thousands. All are deeply invested in a pro-war policy and will therefore have their way.

This is true. But it’s also worth pointing out that foreign policy is never just an idea. It’s a system of interlocking military alliances based on long-term strategic planning. The U.S. is partners with Riyadh not because it necessarily likes the Saudis’ extreme version of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, but because they sit on top of a fifth of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves, a prize that the United States has controlled since World War II and one that it will not easily relinquish.

Just as the U.S. built up the Saudi oil industry from scratch, it similarly built up NATO and will not easily walk away from that alliance either. The international architecture is not completely unchangeable, but it will take more than a single loud-mouthed businessman to do it, particularly one as reactionary and confused as Donald Trump.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 2:57am

@CB

@CB

Makes one wonder if Trump got the same list the Clinton's would have been given, and by the same PTB...

Steering Trump Back to Endless War
Well, that didn’t take long, did it? The Trump administration hadn’t even reached its two-week mark when it surrendered a major portion of its independence and fell in behind the reigning Washington orthodoxy. The turning point came at the United Nations Security Council on Thursday when Ambassador Nikki R. Haley blasted Russia for the upsurge of violence in the eastern Ukraine.
...
One Slim Reed

So amid all the bluster and braggadocio, racism and Islamophobia, there was one slim reed to hold onto: Trump seemed to be capable of at least a modicum of realism when it came to one or two trouble spots around the globe.

But then came the post-election back-tracking. On Nov. 18, Trump named Michael Flynn, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his national security adviser even though Flynn is renowned for his fierce anti-Russian views. Two weeks later, he named the no-less-hawkish James Mattis as his Secretary of Defense. At his confirmation hearing, Mattis described Russia as a “principal” threat to U.S. interests and declared that the U.S.-led world order was “under the biggest attacks since World War II from Russia, terrorist groups, and China’s actions in the South China Sea.”

After once predicting that Clinton’s proposal for a Syrian no-fly zone would “end up in World War III,” Trump also vowed to fix “what’s going on in Syria” by building “safe zones … so people can have a chance.” Then, just this past Sunday, he telephoned King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of neighboring Abu Dhabi to obtain their political and financial support.

“The President requested and the King agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen,” a White House statement said, “as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts.” Where Hillary Clinton had called for just one no-fly zone, Trump was now committing to two.
...
Some will blame what’s known as the Deep State. It’s not the President or Congress who rules, they will argue, but a vast sprawl consisting of the Pentagon, the arms industry, and 17 intelligence agencies employing hundreds of thousands. All are deeply invested in a pro-war policy and will therefore have their way.

This is true. But it’s also worth pointing out that foreign policy is never just an idea. It’s a system of interlocking military alliances based on long-term strategic planning. The U.S. is partners with Riyadh not because it necessarily likes the Saudis’ extreme version of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, but because they sit on top of a fifth of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves, a prize that the United States has controlled since World War II and one that it will not easily relinquish.

Just as the U.S. built up the Saudi oil industry from scratch, it similarly built up NATO and will not easily walk away from that alliance either. The international architecture is not completely unchangeable, but it will take more than a single loud-mouthed businessman to do it, particularly one as reactionary and confused as Donald Trump.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 10:31am

Since there is much speculating

@CB going on, what do you think of Trump's efforts toward energy independence? Do you think it might have an affect on the relationship with Saudi Arabia?

Steering Trump Back to Endless War
Well, that didn’t take long, did it? The Trump administration hadn’t even reached its two-week mark when it surrendered a major portion of its independence and fell in behind the reigning Washington orthodoxy. The turning point came at the United Nations Security Council on Thursday when Ambassador Nikki R. Haley blasted Russia for the upsurge of violence in the eastern Ukraine.
...
One Slim Reed

So amid all the bluster and braggadocio, racism and Islamophobia, there was one slim reed to hold onto: Trump seemed to be capable of at least a modicum of realism when it came to one or two trouble spots around the globe.

But then came the post-election back-tracking. On Nov. 18, Trump named Michael Flynn, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his national security adviser even though Flynn is renowned for his fierce anti-Russian views. Two weeks later, he named the no-less-hawkish James Mattis as his Secretary of Defense. At his confirmation hearing, Mattis described Russia as a “principal” threat to U.S. interests and declared that the U.S.-led world order was “under the biggest attacks since World War II from Russia, terrorist groups, and China’s actions in the South China Sea.”

After once predicting that Clinton’s proposal for a Syrian no-fly zone would “end up in World War III,” Trump also vowed to fix “what’s going on in Syria” by building “safe zones … so people can have a chance.” Then, just this past Sunday, he telephoned King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of neighboring Abu Dhabi to obtain their political and financial support.

“The President requested and the King agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen,” a White House statement said, “as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts.” Where Hillary Clinton had called for just one no-fly zone, Trump was now committing to two.
...
Some will blame what’s known as the Deep State. It’s not the President or Congress who rules, they will argue, but a vast sprawl consisting of the Pentagon, the arms industry, and 17 intelligence agencies employing hundreds of thousands. All are deeply invested in a pro-war policy and will therefore have their way.

This is true. But it’s also worth pointing out that foreign policy is never just an idea. It’s a system of interlocking military alliances based on long-term strategic planning. The U.S. is partners with Riyadh not because it necessarily likes the Saudis’ extreme version of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, but because they sit on top of a fifth of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves, a prize that the United States has controlled since World War II and one that it will not easily relinquish.

Just as the U.S. built up the Saudi oil industry from scratch, it similarly built up NATO and will not easily walk away from that alliance either. The international architecture is not completely unchangeable, but it will take more than a single loud-mouthed businessman to do it, particularly one as reactionary and confused as Donald Trump.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by CB on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 5:22pm

The greatest oil boom in American history has occurred under

@dfarrah
the presidency of Obama. The country went from 4.9 million barrels of oil per day to 8.8 million barrels per day, an increase of 80 percent. It had reached 9.6 million bbl/day back in June 2015 when world prices collapsed. There are now thousands of fracked wells all across the country that have been capped and waiting for oil prices to increase.

The US no longer imports light oil - it has a glut of the stuff from fracking that the refineries cannot currently handle. The country needs heavy oils from the following countries.

Import sources Gross imports Exports Net imports
Canada 3.76 (40%) 0.96 2.81
Saudi Arabia 1.06 (11%) 0.00 1.06
Venezuela 0.83 (9%) 0.07 0.75
Mexico 0.76 (8%) 0.69 0.07
Colombia 0.40 (4%) 0.17 0.22

For all practical purposes, including strategic, the US is now self sufficient in energy.

Submitted by CB on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 6:23pm

Looks like Trump got that little "heart to heart talk"

all incoming presidents get. Maybe that's why he took a little time off to "think about it" at Mar-a-Lago.
Just like Obama did in 2009, Trump is flipping on all his election promises. Get ready for more Kabuki theater.

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 6:49pm

No doubt he's experienced the gravity of the situation.

@CB But his support for the war OF terror, anti-Iranian talk, and wanting to "rebuild" the military combined with who he was aligning himself with told me what I needed to know well before he took office. Also the factional split in D.C. on who to take on first, Russia or China was brewing when he started campaigning so the supposed friendliness with Russia I always saw as an imperialist divide and conquer tactics trying to find a way to break the emerging Russia/China alliance. Then when he made his nominations for his cabinet, it was all over but the counting.

Submitted by CB on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 8:04pm

The US cannot take on (out?) either Russia nor China

@Big Al
The US has literately become muscle bound with its massive military spread across the entire globe that wastes half of the military budget. The huge and fantastically expensive American navy (which Trump has said he would expand) is extremely vulnerable against Russia, China and even Iran.
There is no way that Trump will be able to break the Russian/China alliance.

Can Trumpian Triangular Diplomacy Work?

The circumstances that let the U.S. play China against the Soviet Union in the Cold War no longer exist.

Policy prediction is always difficult, especially with someone like Donald Trump. He has been on every side of most major issues – with the exception of trade – sometimes switching his positions within the same day.

His provocation of China is a case in point. In December, Trump broke decades of diplomatic protocol by talking with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. I wrote then that this was either a simple – but consequential – mistake or the sign of a broader realignment that Trump had done little to prepare the groundwork for.

But some commentators suggest Trump may have a coherent and far-reaching strategy behind all this bluster. What if this is triangular diplomacy for a new age? Instead of splitting China off from and leveraging it against the Soviet Union, as Nixon did in 1972, the United States would corral Russian support against a rising China.

But this vision of a grand strategic bargain rests on faulty premises. The geostrategic conditions that led to the Sino-Soviet split do not hold today, and the U.S. would pay much more and receive much less from Russian assistance against the Chinese than it did from Chinese assistance against the Soviets.
...
Today, we have no comparable dynamic with Russia, given its sustainable isolation from international institutions, markets, and security bodies. So Washington would be entering a costly pact with little medium- to long-term durability, with its individual benefits accruing in a much longer timeframe. This is a bad deal.

Submitted by Creosote. on Mon, 02/06/2017 - 8:49am

Sounds like Napoleon's idea

@CB
to conquer Russia, enlarged.

#6.1 The US has literately become muscle bound with its massive military spread across the entire globe that wastes half of the military budget. The huge and fantastically expensive American navy (which Trump has said he would expand) is extremely vulnerable against Russia, China and even Iran. There is no way that Trump will be able to break the Russian/China alliance. Can Trumpian Triangular Diplomacy Work? The circumstances that let the U.S. play China against the Soviet Union in the Cold War no longer exist. Policy prediction is always difficult, especially with someone like Donald Trump. He has been on every side of most major issues – with the exception of trade – sometimes switching his positions within the same day. His provocation of China is a case in point. In December, Trump broke decades of diplomatic protocol by talking with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. I wrote then that this was either a simple – but consequential – mistake or the sign of a broader realignment that Trump had done little to prepare the groundwork for. But some commentators suggest Trump may have a coherent and far-reaching strategy behind all this bluster. What if this is triangular diplomacy for a new age? Instead of splitting China off from and leveraging it against the Soviet Union, as Nixon did in 1972, the United States would corral Russian support against a rising China. But this vision of a grand strategic bargain rests on faulty premises. The geostrategic conditions that led to the Sino-Soviet split do not hold today, and the U.S. would pay much more and receive much less from Russian assistance against the Chinese than it did from Chinese assistance against the Soviets. ... Today, we have no comparable dynamic with Russia, given its sustainable isolation from international institutions, markets, and security bodies. So Washington would be entering a costly pact with little medium- to long-term durability, with its individual benefits accruing in a much longer timeframe. This is a bad deal.

Submitted by Oldest Son Of A... on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 9:35pm

This Little Talk?

@CB

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMeBgcmTyKA]

—

"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

Submitted by Hillbilly Dem on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 10:10pm

We sure could use Bill Hicks these days.

@Oldest Son Of A Sailor Carlin too. Love Bill Hicks so much, he is my avatar pic.

—

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

Submitted by Mark from Queens on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 10:33pm

You and me both, brother. Carlin and Hicks inform

@Hillbilly Dem a good deal of the foundation of my political and life philosophy. So pure, compassionate, indignant and spiritually boisterous, both. Rare, brilliant and riotously funny human beings.

The power of the comedian to use satire and humor to broach difficult, controversial and confounding issues is not to be underestimated. Mark Twain was a master, so was Hunter Thompson in another way (I find myself laughing out loud quite frequently reading him).

Was watching one of the latest Jimmy Dore clips, in which he assembles a group of comedians to talk about current politics while using graphs, tweets and video clips that they all chime in and eviscerate brilliantly, and thought that he could have a really successful touring show if he were to take it out on the road.

I really think Dore could take this on the road and become a Progressive hero. He's so fucking good, and dead on. People would flock to hear such truth to power. Neoliberals Stewart and Colbert should be ashamed of themselves, coasting on their phony Progressive credentials. He wipes the floor with those imposters. Need more like him and Lee Camp.

—

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sat, 02/04/2017 - 6:41pm

Damn, Big Al, you had me worried there for a minute

But never fear! The Who is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. (Yes, you made me look. Ha.)

https://www.rockhall.com/inductees/who

How good were the Who? They were arguably the most divisively anarchic yet fiercely committed band in rock history, and they didn’t just command attention, they demanded it. As essayist Keith Altman wrote in appropriately breathless prose: “It is impossible to convey to anyone who never saw the Who onstage how totally opposed, combative, feuding, contentious, brawling, individually brilliant young musicians could blend into such a perfect gestalt of mind and music whose power, rage and compassion was both anguish and sheer unadulterated delight.”

Exactly.

Submitted by Strife Delivery on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 12:47am

Personally

I didn't really have any belief regarding the Middle East. We've been enmeshed their for so many decades and they are the "easy" targets. Really. Evil Muslim men with stolen Toyota trucks and AK's running rampant. That is easy to sell on the news.

Russia...I try to deal with probability and for myself I view that Russia is a low probability scenario.

China... is a big question mark to me on how far he wants to go. I mean everyone was dealing with the fear of Russia.

So with the Middle East, didn't really have much hope there. When was the last time we fought a superpower? Over half a century ago?

Edit: I guess I wanted to add a few more things here.

Part of the confusion with China for me is that we haven't gone through the steps yet.

With Iraq, we built up WMD's and Saddam. Built and built that up.
Russia we had small news stuff about Ukraine and then ramping up with Syria and then the super build up with "election hacking".

China? Trump talked about them devaluing their currency some. Bannon? made a comment about going after the South China seas (but again that is so out of character for us to just quickly jump into things). Perhaps I'm off base here but I haven't seen the cycle of fear mongering against China. To get support for your war you have to con the people into believing that it is necessary.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 3:25am

@Strife Delivery

@Strife Delivery

They're probably trying to drum up nuke-level fear about China, but everything now just habitually comes out as ROOSIANS!!! so they have no idea that 'that message just hasn't been reaching the people' somehow.

'Bright' is not a suitable descriptor for these people... although 'pathologically, mindlessly, blindly, suicidally greedy' certainly would be.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 11:21am

How much of this do

@Ellen North you think might be driven by our trade deficits?

—

dfarrah

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 10:57am

Does Trump

@Strife Delivery operate that way?

I don't see him worrying about building anything up.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by kakumeiji maru on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 3:09am

More evidence

If people here should ever encounter anyone who still believes that Donald Trump is really an isolationist and is going to get us out of the Empire business, Elliot Abrams, the old Reagan administration hand who was Robert Kagan's neocon mentor, is expected to get appointed Deputy Secretary of State.

Well, the swamp really does need to be drained, but Donald Trump is not the man who is going to do it.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 3:26am

@kakumeiji maru

@kakumeiji maru

Hey, he's just draining that swamp directly into the public water supply, alligator shit and all.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 02/05/2017 - 1:48pm

Of everything we've heard from the Trump admin so far,

what we heard Friday, to me, was the worst with the biggest impact. Unless you count the climate change thing that everybody here seems to think will burn us up within the decade.
Trump's EO on rebuilding the military. That is big, bad news on a number of fronts because it impacts everything. Putting together an essay on that today.