"Ukrainians understand what losing is like because they saw Bucha. They saw the bodies in the streets of Bucha. Israelis know what losing is like because they know that October 7 was a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust II. But we don’t really know what losing would mean. And young Americans absolutely have no concept. In fact, young Americans are so complacent about freedom that they’re basically against it now, which is a bizarre turn of events. "
To quote the President that changed everything for me, after being indoctrinated by University of Michigan for four years:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
The wonderful cost-effectiveness of overthrowing Russia by using Ukraine as a proxy war tool.
Let's not forget that Ukraine is so fucking corrupt that Ukraine supplied North Korea with ICBM technology --- while depending on the USA as its ally. Quickly hushed up by Obama. Ukraine is why every American city can now be hit by North Korean missiles. North Korea could take us out in terms of being a well developed nation.
Let's also not forget that Russia has never allowed itself to be overthrown by a foreign power, and that Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. Russia's MIRVs have 0.75 megaton yield each. The USA's have 0.25 megaton yield each. Russia can literally sterilize the entire nation in an hour, coast to coast. They would probably leave Hawaii inhabitable, and large parts of Alaska. Russians like Hawaii, and Alaska used to be theirs.
Russia is also the only nation on the planet prepared for nuclear war. I am the only American Prof. Cohen knew of that had been down inside of a working shelter in the heartland of Russia. Russians are tough and survivors.
The argument goes that Russia's warheads have to have larger yields because their delivery isn't as accurate. According to this argument, the United States and its allies can destroy more targets than Russia can...but of course no one really knows until they use them, and how many would actually launch and detonate? Land-based ICBMs from both sides would have to be launched over the North Pole. The effect of the rotating earth under the trajectory of the missile in this extreme case has never been tested, for obvious reasons, only simulated. Sub-launched ballistic missiles don't have to go over the pole and can be tested in more real-life conditions.
You are certainly correct that the Russian people have shown great resilience and stoic
willingness to suffer and keep fighting, as during the sieges of Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Odessa. If they were told to endure the inevitable American second strike by digging into their gardens, the shelters and bunkers being reserved for commissars or their post-Soviet equivalent, I don't doubt that they would. But Mutual Assured Destruction must still deter the Russian leadership from a first strike, no?
1. When the enemy has enough warheads mounted to incinerate every square mile with triple the explosive power, several times over, any talk of better targeting is academic. There is no coming back from that.it doesn't matter how many submarines or navalgroups survive if there's nothing to come back to.
The USA has, for all practical purposes, no shelters at all. Our housing will burn in firestorms.
2. From having been inside, my report is that the people in the heartland are better equipped than the leadership is. Russia can come through with around 60 million people in shelter with food and water. These are people who could then survive and rebuild. They are just losing their living memory of doing that in previous generations.
3. Any nuclear war with Russia, China, we would lose. We would not come back from it. Game over. A nuclear war with North Korea we would be devastated by.
Of all the nations on earth, the most preparedis Russia. There really is no other that can weather an all-out nuclear war.
The conclusion from that is, don't back Russia into a corner.
Have to fact check your Point #1. The Russian nuclear arsenal is estimated at about 6000, with 1600 strategic. But let's say all 6000 could be delivered onto the U.S.. Surface area of the U.S. is 3 million square miles without Alaska (which, yes, the Russians might well spare.) That means each warhead would have to be able to "incinerate" 500 square miles, or a circle 26 miles in diameter. A megaton might destroy around 100 square miles, depending on the size of the individual warheads. A larger number of smaller warheads destroys more area than one big one of the same yield, hence the appeal of MIRVs if they can be made accurate enough to hit those defined areas of value.
The heat flash from a nuclear weapon is of high intensity but brief. It would not create sustained fires except in buildings and therefore could not "incinerate" anything other than built-up areas. These would already have been destroyed by blast and would provide kindling and fuel load for an urban fire, which could well spread beyond the immediate blast destruction zone, all the firefighting equipment and personnel having been killed. Some forested areas with heavy fuel loads might catch fire if targeted but of course deserts and and mountains above tree line would not burn. (And why would Russia waste its warheads bombing uninhabited wide-open spaces?) So I can't see Russia's entire nuclear arsenal being able to incinerate every square mile of the United States even close to once over, much less thrice over.
So this gets us back to how Russia would use its strategic weapons: to attack ICBM sites in the High Plains far from large cities, naval bases, air bases serving the nuclear bomber force, and to attack cities where the concentration of buildings and people assured high levels of death and destruction per megaton and per warhead. For all these uses, targeting accuracy is important, particularly for hitting ICBM silos. I reiterate that the primary value of the bigger Russian weapons is to allow "close enough" to be effective, particular in the retaliatory strike intended to kill as many Americans as possible. For that you don't need incineration. You need blast destruction of concentrated urban built-up areas. Any fires started are a bonus.
To ensure the destruction of geographically large cities like New York, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles, the Russians might commit a dozen or more warheads to each to allow for impacts outside the circle-error probable. All this is guesswork from an average of 1 megaton per weapon. Many are likely smaller than that and the ginormous 10-50 megaton bombs of yesteryear were so that if a Bear bomber was heavily damaged on its way to New York it could drop its bomb on Tarrytown before it fell out of the sky and still cause havoc in Manhattan., ditto for an ICBM falling short or wide.
I agree that #2 and #3 are correct even if I dispute the literal accuracy of #1. A nuclear exchange would devastate a complex interdependent society like United States/Canada even if the empty spaces were left unscathed and unburned and only five or six cities were struck. The Russians could dig themselves out and rebuild, surviving for a generation or more as stoic peasants.
The biggest problem is nuclear fallout spread by wind. That is likely to have long-term effects that even "stoic peasants"--whatever their nationality--will have difficulty overcoming.
They don't need 6000 warheads to destroy us. They just need a dozen detonated in the upper atmosphere to create EMP pulses that fry our data/power networks. Our civilization collapses immediately and 90% of us die within 6 months.
Yes, I’ve heard that for many years. I don’t know how anyone can know that’s what would happen except by exposing electronic parts to EMP in the lab and see if they fry, and then modeling the scale-up. The Canadian Navy used to have some old steam-powered destroyer escorts with vacuum-tube electronics that were said to be more resistant to EMP, and Soviet fighters flown to the west by defectors had vacuum tubes also. Whether that was a deliberate strategy or whether they were just primitive, hard to say. In our ships’ case it was definitely primitive. The resistance to EMP was just sailor humour: if they shoot a missile at us, they’ll sink us, but if they explode a nuke in the stratosphere we can at least still call home.
I like your optimism..(I'm attempting to be satirical)
Your comment brings to mind that memorable line delivered by George C. Scott's character in Dr. Strangelove in discussing an American first strike on the Soviet Union - 'we'll just suffer 20 million casualties, tops!!'
My favourite movie, ever. Gotta make sure we don't suffer from a "mine-shaft gap".
Somebody on another blog pointed out that Major Kong and his B-52 crew were the only people in the whole movie who properly carried out their jobs as intended. (Although I suppose Group Captain Mandrake did, too, in getting the recall codes from Gen. Ripper even though it wasn't in his job description.)
Seems to me, after all the BILLIONS $$$, weapons and even soldiers we have sent to Ukraine, USA should be pushing Ukraine to some kind of war ending deal with Russia. Same with Hamas~~~STOP sending them $$$ and aid and force them to surrender.
With a nation that has had its young flee to avoid service? Some of them post on twitter from their safe havens in Europe. A nation that is conscripting 45-50 year olds? And let's not forget the billions stolen by Ukraine's gangsters in charge.
Oh, they know. Russia staged the largest Civil defense exercise in history in 2016. That was in response to some democrat wackos speechifying about having to launch a first strike from submarines offshore.
A first strike by anyone could be ruinous for everyone when the response comes back. The earth could well be made uninhabitable merely for all the radiation lingering for multiple decades in the atmosphere, long after the physical destruction is done. Russia would not be immune, in my opinion.
Nuclear winter. That is a deterrent all by its lonesome. Recall a volcanic eruption occuring in Iceland in 2010. Eyjafjallajökull erupted for about one week in April and subsequently interrupted travel and communications across Europe. Do you think global leadership might take this byproduct of multiple atmospheric thermonuclear detonation into consideration?
No one is talking about overthrowing Russia, not even overthrowing its evil dictator, so you throw this up as a straw man to argue that the West do nothing to help the country Russia invaded. And then you throw in the OTHER straw man: that the Russians will pull the nuclear trigger. Putin might be evil but he’s rational. It’s not going to happen.
Plus - not defending Putin, just saying - all these countries and we’re haphazardly like “c’mon join us in NATO!” which sucks, Putin just sees as a massive threat on his doorstep, wouldn’t you get pissed and react? It’s all so dangerous. That was never supposed to be the deal and we’re messing with a tyrant...
I can't figure out how women will dress like a street walker, and then get offended if a man makes a move on her. And the way women dress at the Oscars, with their boobs & body barely covered...they are asking for trouble, then complain when they get it!!!
For men every encounter is like a job interview. For women every encounter is like shopping. Women can't always find what they want but they will settle if they want children badly enough. (Even if they have no economically valuable skills, they don't need to find husbands for financial reasons because the state can be made to fill the role of husband nowadays.) Some men will never find women who are willing to settle for them because women in the welfare state or who can work plus or minus raise children no longer need men whose only strong suit is "good provider".
Life's hard but that's how it is. In nature, many males never get to mate. Males compete for choosy females. In polygynic systems, strong males control several females and the weaker males are shut out entirely. (That's unless they can sneak into the harem without the alpha male noticing and have their way with a less-favoured female.) Polygamy is illegal in western countries but nothing controls the reproductive success of a highly attractive or wealthy single male who can have sex with several single women with or without their knowing about the existence of the others.
Buddy, guess what: on my last first date, she did conduct an actual job interview, including having me submit a resumé, the first one I had put to use in years now that I'm retired and widowed. Highly unusual, but I played along.
Two years on, we're still together and doing fine, with pre-verified compatibility.
I saw that as a hearing officer for child support in the early 90s. Women were happy to have the State as the supporting other parent rather than the unreliable sperm donor who impregnated them.
Yes, that always annoyed me. We tax payers were (still are) subsidizing those people to have more children that they can't afford. The states should have required sterilization after they had two state supported children. But, oh no, we can't do that, can we.
Couldn't agree more with Niall Ferguson. When Fukuyama wrote "The End of History", we all seemed to say "Whew, glad that's over." History has other ideas. America was always safe because our military capability and the global belief that we would use it was feared by our enemies. Given the pusillanimous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our drive to make the military "woke", our feckless behavior relative to Iran's aggression, the fact that we let a Chinese spy balloon hover our military installations unmolested, and the lack of a Southern Border for three years, I do not believe that America is feared any longer. There is a very real possibility that 2024 could be a year like none we have experienced before. I can only hope I am wrong.
I don't know about laughing, I do know they are planning our demise if not overthrow. Those aren't only potential farmworkers coming across the Southern border. Iran isn't whistleing Dixie and XiPutin isn't thinking only about the present.
As in Iran. That is why they trained Hamas for the massacre of Oct 7 Hostage taking is their game.
Obama helped weaken our International agenda. He had Zero experience. Iran, Russia China and N. Korea see all this Wokeness as weakness in the U. S. We need someone like Nikki Haley in the W. H.
They haven't indicted him for that because they don't have the proof (yet).
But if you think the man who thinks that those serving in the military are "suckers", stole money from American citizens by setting up a fake university and regularly declares his affection for murderous dictators wouldn't sell secrets to our enemies for profit, you are in heavy denial.
The onus is on you to prove that, and you just said they have no proof. The indictment is as it is and does not accuse him of disclosing secrets to enemies for love or money. The charges are failing to return U.S. government documents when asked nicely and obstructing justice by thwarting efforts by the FBI to find them. If there was evidence that he gave actively useful secrets to the bad guys, I'm sure the DoJ would have gleefully indicted him under the Espionage Act. Since they didn't do that, presumably he didn't do it. The indictment doesn't even challenge his claim that he could (while President) de-classify documents simply by thinking about them, which, to me, means that he was right: he could do that as president. The charges relate to his continued possession of them, secret or not, after he became a private citizen and do not address the classification authority at all, or any transmission to America's enemies.
What you or I think Trump would or wouldn't do based on his long list of sins and transgressions is irrelevant to the question of what he actually did or didn't do, which is the only thing the Courts have to figure out. Just as a woman's previous character or even criminal record does not bear on whether or not she was "really" raped as she says, all the things you don't like about Trump's character have no bearing on his guilt of the charges laid out in any of the indictments, or on any other crimes you wish he had been indicted for but he wasn't. Sorry, heart-breaking for you I know, but they don't.
Why are you defending him? He's a grifter, He's a malignant narcissist, any mental health professional will tell you that; He has sexually assaulted women.. and he tried to overturn a legitimate presidential election. This is a role model for your children?? You are in deep s***. Not to mention deep denial.
"If there was evidence that he gave actively useful secrets to the bad guys, I'm sure the DoJ would have gleefully indicted him under the Espionage Act. Since they didn't do that, presumably he didn't do it."
There was no definitive proof that OJ Simpson murdered his wife. The fact that Nicole Simpson was assaulted by him nine times, said "if I'm ever murdered, OJ did it", and that he took off for the airport with a bag full of cash after the murder might not be enough evidence to convict him, but since the jury didn't, "presumably he didn't do it?" Seriously?
Yes, at the moment, it's just a conviction, just as I believe OJ Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman. Now be honest: If you had to bet your life on whether or not Trump showed or sold a stolen secret document to an unauthorized person or nation, which way would you bet?
...and Defense Secretary Austin accusing the military of having too many 'right-leaning radicals' prompting a study which just recently proved he was wrong. Nothing like publicly besmirching your work force - great for morale.
Leaping to accuse border patrol agents for "whipping immigrants" and comparing it to whipping slaves. That's on the front page, of course. An investigation finding it never happened is buried in the back.
I agree that America is likely not feared, but no country wishes to cut off the head of the snake to save the body. I mean, no country wishes to risk there own annihilation in order to claim a military victor over an Empire State. Except maybe North Korea... The new world war looks just like what is happening; milti-front regional battles with proxy war support from larger countries, all the while the real test is whose economy remains relevant after its all said and done. Our economy may tank, and we “lose”but that would also give us an opportunity to rest out isolationism as thought up originally in WW1. The United States is the most impenetrable nation in the world. We have solid trade and military agreements with our border nations, and we have expansive ocean on with side. The likely hood of our soil being at threat is terribly low. The outlook that we loose our global present increases with each passing year.
I agree in principle, Daniel. However, as far as impenetrable, we have had over 3 million "migrants" cross what used to be our Southern border. Over 700 of these were on our terror watch list. This is only those who were caught. Secondly, do not underestimate the extremism of radical islam. Their value structure, as demonstrated on October 7th bears no resemblance to ours.
True, we are threatened by terrorism and potential self inflicted wounds by weakening our border security. Terrorism acts upon the US though likely are not be an issue in a world where US hegemony is no longer relevant. Our acts in the Middle East have only strengthened the potential for terrorism against us. The same is likely true for Israel. Whether or not a terrorist stack hits before then, well, let’s hope not. All I’m saying is there’s a benefit for us to be forced into downsizing our global influence. Which, if I’m to be honest, I see as an inevitably that can’t be avoided, given enough time.
You may be right, although, after 76 years as the leader of the free world, I'm not sure America understands the implications of relinquishing that role. Just my opinion.
I wish you were wrong but I don’t think you are. All of the above + what’s the unknown for this year it doesn’t look pretty but I am ever hopeful as the yard moves along common sense will prevail
Niall Ferguson is one of the last people I would look to for accurate foreign policy info. Have a look at this excellent piece Matt Taibbi wrote on him and his fellow war hawks, and see if you still feel the same:
I have enormous respect for Matt (I subscribe). There are indeed people in authority that have, as they say, never met a war they didn’t like. That said, this neo-isolationism is very reminiscent of the period leading up to WWII, with dilettantes like Tucker Carlson playing the role of Father Coughlin, who demagogued against American involvement as Hitler rolled through Europe. Our lack of engagement ultimately led to Pearl Harbor and American involvement in a two-front war. As that period demonstrated, the idea that we can just pull up the drawbridges and let others take care of themselves is, IMHO, specious. For instance, if the US walks away from Ukraine (American casualties 0) and Russia takes over Ukraine, they will be up against Sweden, a NATO ally. Whether we like it or not, an attack on NATO requires, by our agreement, American involvement (troops on the ground) in response. If we pull out of the Middle East, we will surely facilitate the second Holocaust. If we pull out of East Asia, China takes over Taiwan (and the overwhelming source of our pharmaceuticals and computer chips). History demonstrates that foreign policy decisions come with a cost. There is no black/white, only grey. As someone who grew up in the military and who also served, no one hates war more than me. The only way to stay out of war is to convincingly demonstrate to your enemies that they cannot win.
It seems your WW2 history is a bit off. FDR desperately wanted to involve the US in WW2 to fight Germany, but 80% of the citizenry were against it. He knew the only way they'd support US entry into the war was if we were attacked directly. Thus, he provoked Japan by freezing their assets, embargoing all oil shipments to Japan, and rebuffing Tokyo's repeated requests for negotiations. https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/#purging-our-leading-historians-and-journalists
"Israel can prevent a "second holocaust" simply by negotiating with the Palestinians for the right to return and ending the occupation?" You mean like the 4 times that they offered the Palestinians everything they said they wanted and they walked away from the table and launched terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians? Or perhaps when, in 2005, the Israeli government uprooted all the Israelis from Gaza and turned it over to the PLO, at which point Hamas threw the Palestinian leadership off of rooftops and assumed control of Gaza. As far as their "Occupation", the Jews have had a continuous presence in Israel for over 3,000 years. Perhaps you can provide a couple of details that I've always been curious about. The term "Palestine" was created by the Romans in 73 CE after they had destroyed the Second Temple and driven the Jews out of land that they had occupied for almost 2,000 years. Following that, control of Jerusalem went back and forth between Muslims and Christians until the end of World War I, when the League of Nations created the current State of Israel as the Homeland of the Jews, (later ratified by the UN). Given that easily verifiable history, the term "occupation" is a fantasy.. You might consider reading some history books other than the propaganda that currently passes for history.
"the 4 times that they offered the Palestinians everything they said they wanted" -- Really? So, Israel offered them right of return and their land back? In reality, NONE of the Zionists' "deals" have been even remotely reasonable.
"Hamas threw the Palestinian leadership off of rooftops." -- Good grief, where do you get such propaganda? The only mentions of this I can find are from the (credibility-questionable) NYT, which states, "On its first day in full control in Gaza, Hamas on Friday both mocked and reached out to its defeated Fatah rivals, offering them amnesty but also...throwing a Fatah gunman off a rooftop." So, even if that's true, it's one person who obviously posed a threat. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/world/africa/15iht-mideast.4.6161020.html
The second mention is an Agence France-Presse article titled, "Video does not show Hamas throwing people off a roof," which reveals the video was actually of ISIS in Iraq. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.347B339
Regarding the "easily verifiable history," there continues to be robust debate amongst historians over who inhabited the land first, who drove out whom and when. Here are just a few of the numerous books and articles written by prominent historians that have informed my beliefs on the matter:
A robust debate, huh. It seems apparent that you have never visited Israel, where the project of unearthing and restoring King David’s home in Jerusalem, which has been carbon dated to the 11th-10th century BCE. Mohammed was born and Islam was founded in the 7th century CE, 1600 years later. Believe what you choose.
So let's see what happens in '24. Let's see if we're feared or not. If North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah, China, Russia directly challenges us militarily - I will concede your point. Do you really think that's going to happen? If we're so weak, how come the bad guys haven't done anything like that yet?
But can our enemies be so assured we’re weakened internally? You might be. I’m not. They have no guarantee we’re on the verge of collapse or self defeat.
There are no guarantees of that sort of thing. But our enemies can see that we’re degrading societally and militarily. China, specifically, doesn’t want to invade and occupy the US Red Dawn style, they want to dominate Asia and subjugate us economically.
How would they do that? FYI, we are in the process of building all the manufacturing infrastructure back into North America, with an assist for resources from a couple South America countries. Japan has a navy now. Australia has one. And we have the ability with the push of a few buttons to sink any ship we want to. China has shown no ability to manufacture high end chips...........most come from Taiwan. You don't think the Taiwanese have installed their own chips inside an army of drones? On top of that, China's population is plummeting, meaning even fewer domestic consumers and more dependence on the American market. Pull the American market and their economy collapses. Include the Europeans and other USA allies and it is over for the Chinese.
I think China has some very large problems economically on their own. But we have no real assurance they are that weakened either. Perception can be dangerous. But I take your point.
I've been reading the "China is about to implode" analyses for years. Their demographic problem is indeed well known and apparent, the economic stuff much less so. Having said that, Japan is way ahead of them on the demographics road and they are still functioning like a normal nation. In other words, those signs and problems are mostly deep and less clear, less obvious.
But our government's intentional abdication of a basic duty of national sovereignty (border security) is neon bright, no crystal balls needed. Our failing inner cities, also clear. Our population segment that openly hates Western Civilization, even the USA itself, is not only visible but in positions of power. Our military saying climate change and white supremacy are our biggest threats, along with mentally ill (gender dysphoria) officers - right out there for everyone to see.
It's best to make small incurrsions first and see what the response is. If the response is weak, then go forward, if it's strong, back up and wait. As long as the US has nuclear power, it's enemies will hesitate.
Exactly right. As Stalin said: push in your bayonet. If you hit steel, pull back. Otherwise keep pushing. Currently we have the Eisenhower Carrier group, with its almost incomprehensible destructive power in the area. Meanwhile Iran’s proxies are firing rockets and killing American servicemen in Iraq, attacking cargo ships and disrupting traffic to the point that major shipping companies have stopped using the Red Sea, providing Lebanon with increasingly accurate and longer range missiles capable of bringing down skyscrapers in Tel Aviv. What do we do? We just released another $3 billion to Iran. Does that sound like they fear us?
I don’t see an incursion by any of the countries I mentioned unless it was a mistake. If Putin was truly fearless for example, he would have entered the Baltics already..But he hasn’t and he won’t.
Agree Lee. Too much uninformed woofing going on here, especially about using nukes (by anyone). Having said that, it’s getting awfully close to Israel bombing Hizbollah in southern Lebanon just to push them away from the border and to send a signal to Iran. But even in its rage Israel too is a rational actor: Hizbollah has several HUNDRED thousand rockets and missiles; they make Hamas look like a scout troop. No one is doing anything irrational except Putin, and look at how that’s working out for him.
Niall Ferguson is right. An aura of inevitability tends to creep in on Monday morning, and it should be a habit to remember those wins that were, in fact, close. World War II wasn't a given, and much closer than many realize. The release of Cold War spy files in the early '90s revealed that, shocker, there really were communist agents and traitors in the country working for its failure. And now we're supposed to win Cold War II when we won't even keep Thanksgiving parades and Christmas tree lightings orderly, let alone access roads to major airports?
As I told my husband not too long ago, " The American people have been wrong before, but I don't recall a time when they were silly. Now we aren't just "unserious," we're silly.
We may appear weak. But are we really? What yardstick are you using? Hezbollah hasn't attacked Israel from the north since the Gaza war began. Could it be because two US carrier groups are nearby reinforcing Israel? Putin has stayed fighting within Ukraine. Has he conducted military incursions in NATO territory? No. And why is that?
Our military is serious, but under the woke agenda promoted by the current administration, it is rapidly becoming unserious. Too many people are leaving in disgust at promotion of officers who don't meet the requirements of the job because of their preferences, color, or gender. Too many promotions are based on whether or not you agree with the woke party line. I live in a community with 2 Navy bases. No one wants to serve with people who can't or won't be responsible for their job.
It's both. Add to that all the service members the military has lost due to their covid vax mandate and all the global conflicts it has unnecessarily involved itself in, plus its recruiting challenges for the same reasons... our military is anything but serious; it's a joke.
You're right. And there are enough land based units in the area to continue deterrence. My point is that the pessimism here is overdrawn - saying we're weak when we have yet to be challenged head on. And the reasons are clear why we haven't.
I concede that I’m pessimistic, Lee, and I hope you’re right. But I submit that America’s image on the world stage over the last few years has emboldened foreign powers, increasing the likelihood that we will be challenged.
Our military maybe strong but our president is weak. and he needs to make the moves and decisions to keep reminding those bad guys how strong we are and we will use it to defeat the bad guys. joe can't even defeat his political opponents from the Dem party without the Dem party declaring him the only candidate. As Gates pointed out and we have seen the last three years, joe has never been on the right side of any foreign policy. "I told him to fire the guy or no billions of dollars. Well S.O.B. they fired him." No Quid Pro Quo there.
Well dan, I can only say then if the US military wipes out the Houthis in Yemen - I hope he isn't branded a warmonger by the Trumpist bullpit here. Because he will..
Weakness is as weakness does. We do indeed have extraordinarily deadly assets in the region. Other than blowing up a couple of empty warehouses and one leadership node, we have not engaged seriously. Having these assets on station and not using them is, IMO, worse than not having them there.
Not to be argumentative, but Hizbollah has reoccupied the buffer zone created by the, as always, studiously incompetent, UN "peace-keeping" force and is now on Israel's border. Their rocket attacks have driven residents 3 miles on the Israeli side of the border to refugee camps. There is an almost daily exchange of rocket and tank fire between Israel and Lebanon since October 7th. This is a tinderbox.
I agree it’s a tinderbox. Hezbollah has just recently responded to Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader in Beirut by firing a flurry of rockets. Will they go further is the question.
Oct 7 wouldn’t have happened at all if we weren’t weak. Your claim is that we aren’t weak and your evidence is that there hasn’t been a second Oct 7. Why was there any Oct 7 at all?
Saying that Oct 7 occurred because we are weak is like saying that the reason Egypt invaded Israel in 1973 was because America under Nixon was weak. But we weren't and they invaded anyway. Oct 7 occurred because 1. Hamas perceived Israel to be sleeping and (in my opinion..) 2. Because Hamas needed to derail a potential deal between Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US.
They invaded for those reasons and the weakness of the United States that was put on display by the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Since Afghanistan Russia has invaded Ukraine and Palestine has invaded Israel.
It is obviously due to our current weakness and you’re simply trying to distract from what is obvious because it doesn’t comport with the narrative necessary to eliminate your cognitive dissonance.
You need to arrive at “everything is fine, Biden is in control” and you’ll bend the facts as needed to arrive there.
I never said Biden is in control. It appears that the planet itself is slowly going out of control - and has been ever since geopolitically we are now a multipower world. I think the unravelling started after Sept 11 and has accelerated ever since.
The Afghanistan debacle closed the door on America's supremacy. That's why the "bad guys" (Russia, Iran's minions and China) are not afraid to start wars. Pax American no longer exists thanks to the incompetence of the present administration and cabinet.
Every one of them weak, denialist cop-outs a la Comprof, where any answer to your prompt will be fruitless.
The president and vice president are idiots, we have 34 trillion in debt, we can't define the word "woman" and the Democratic Party is entirely in a cold war with the people of the USA.
Anybody who's not infected with the mind virus can see we're a disgrace and a farce of our former country.
The cold war I was referring to was the one Niall was. The 34 trill you refer to is owned by the 'uniparty' - of which you and I have both voted for since we were of age. Relax Anthony - the problem, sir - is us.
Our economy overall is doing well right now, while China is in dire straits. If we want to pay to defend ourselves we need to end the Trump and Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Since inception of trickledown policy we have had a growing debt.
You've clearly not done the math here. You could seize the entire fortunes of our "millionaires and billionaires" and not close the deficit for a single year.
Last year was the worst year in American banking ever. Three out of four of the biggest bank failures in USA history were last year. If you didn't hear about that, your information sources are junk and that's why you think the economy is "overall doing well."
Nearly everything in our economy is now dependent on government spending, and the government spending is entrenched in unsustainable debt that's just gotten drastically more expensive to refinance. Cut the deficit spending, and the economy spirals out of control.
Meanwhile the dollar is dropping internationally as BRICS coordinates to remove American hegemony from the economic system. Further dollar devaluation leads to further debt and sustainability problems - and we're currently flooding the nation with illegals going on welfare.
As with almost everything else, the Biden administration is destroying the nation as fast as it can, while focusing most of their efforts on campaigning and lies.
Do a little research on the impact of the Trump tax reduction. A friggin disaster for everyone but the top 1-5%. Corporate tax reduced by 11% never triggered higher incomes they projected. Eliminating the tax cuts won’t fix our debt/deficit issues in a year, but over a decade would make a huge difference. Trickle down economics doesn’t work.
The economy is doing well, but the amount of money we have to pay to service the debt is increasing. That is the sinkhole that we need to deal with and until we cut spending (both sides of the aisle are responsible), our economy will have underlying problems.
Are you actually a communist or are you playing that game where you pretend when conservatives call people “communist” they’re just being hysterical and referring to normal left wing people?
There’s a difference between being left wing and being a communist. A communist is a specific thing. Are you or are you not a communist?
Why, Douglas! Who knew you could so perceptive in your suspicions! I'm impressed. I could be a (ab)normal 'left wing person'. Or maybe I'm just AI. Maybe what you asked was just a joke - but around here, you never know..
I was responding to Blair's worry about all the communists in our midst, if you were to read above. I just reminded him we've had them for the last 75 years at least, and that our country is still here. And as per your question if I really am a true blue communist - try to figure it out yourself. And I'll try to figure out what you adhere to. We can trade insults into the future. It could be fun.
You didn’t answer the question. You said, “we’re still here.” Implying you yourself are a communist.
I do not think you are a communist. I think you like to think that conservatives who are concerned about communists are just irrational and paranoid low information individuals freaking out about welfare or something, as if welfare or left wing policies were necessarily communist.
I think you’re accusing your debate opponent of being irrational in an indirect and immature manner.
Douglas, try to relax. It's Saturday. Your interpretation of what I said is creative - but when I said we're still here I meant the USA. Why would you insinuate that i think conservatives are 'low information' individuals - they all seem rather intelligent around here. It's why I'm still around.
Then that’s all you had to say! Why waste so many comments perpetuating a misunderstanding. Just say, “Douglas, dear handsome Douglas, you misunderstood what I said. I was referring to the United States. Looks like you’re itching for a fight but let’s just get drinks and be friends, you’re so handsome.”
Frank Luntz refers to First Lady Jill Biden as "one of our best in modern times." He left out that Dr. Biden is also a world-class physician. See say pwodway!
My thoughts exactly - what has she done? Please. Honestly, I do not believe she has to do anything, but let´s just not pretend that she has. I am so sick of the left making us play pretend games.
She’s gotten a lot of people to unironically call her DOCTOR Jill Biden. Under most circumstances, someone with her limited credentials insisting on that honorific would rightly be mocked as pretentious.
Best of modern times? The woman who shunned -- and is still shunning -- her granddaughter? The woman who refused to put up Christmas stockings this year because she didn't want to put up one for Navy? I wouldn't walk across the street to say hello to her.
I would. But then, I am polite that way, and my bar has been set pretty high. I once took a man out to dinner who ran the largest murder organization in the region. And finished up saving the lives of a few ungrateful young jerks. But I do understand where you're coming from.
I found it vaguely disturbing that he is hallucinatory enough to think Joe Biden decides anything but what flavor of ice cream he wants. We dont have a President, and I thought all thinking people realized it.
I am basing my comments on the fact that our President gets lost on stages, mumbles complete gibberish in front of other world leaders, and reportedly smells really bad, which makes me think he craps in his pants, like most old men with Alzheimers do. He just does it while representing the United States.
I find it comical that you would be disconnected from reality--as I see it--to claim Trump "trashed" anything. It was obvious in the Obama years that Corporate America WANTED to start investing and growing again, but they didn't trust Obama. He was, is and will remain a Communist in all but name. Once Obama got the boot and Trump got in, everything came roaring back.
Biden deserves credit for NOTHING. I am not aware of one thing he has done that helped--or was intended to help over the long term--any Americans he was not trying to pander to. Our border is wide open to economic tourists and terrorists alike. Our enemies don't fear us, and our friends don't trust us.
This is what happens when you crap your pants at meetings with world leaders.
OMG, you are delusional. It was his own former administration that reported that TRUMP smells like poop and body odor. Do you think its normal presidential behavior to throw lunch at the wall? to ingage in insurrection? to deride anyone who disagrees with you? to sexually assault women? oh sure, they lied, right?
Let's agree to agree that ONE of us is delusional.
That would be you. You can disagree with that part. Just kidding!!!. You would not be you if you were capable of self reflection, and the honest evaluation of criticism, so your disagreement is roughly as likely as that I will continue to be weighed down by gravity, versus floating up freely, as I would like to do, in some measure to avoid the reality that our nation is filled with people like you.
I've honestly never understood hysterical left wing evangelists, other than to repeatedly draw the obvious conclusion that whatever virtues you may possess at work and in your personal relationships, you are contextually psychotic, and psychotic is just not a great place to begin a rational conversation. And it won't happen here.
Myrna. Honey. You really need professional help. I realize a good therapist is hard to find. But maybe just someone who can prescribe some CALM DOWN pills.
Not sure what planet you're living on, but here on Earth the US has a weak job market, high inflation, and an extremely embarrassed "face" that much of the rest of the world views as quite ugly and ridicules.
Yes, but the "presidents" we do have running things are.... Besides, what McWhorter or someone recently published a book about, Congress is supposed to be running things.
Congress creates laws and budgets. Presidents enforce the laws--to fail to do so is patent dereliction of duty--and oversee the agencies to whom the money is given.
We don't know who is making the decisions. Some people think Obama, but Obama himself was obviously a puppet. He's not actually that smart. He's a reasonably gifted parrot and grifter, but I don't personally think he wrote the books which created the impression he had intellectual gifts.
No, the likeliest conclusion is that the banks and large corporations who run everything else--and who are pushing Woke and DEI and Open Borders and War with Russia--have their agents in the White House, who simply tell Joe Biden what he thinks, writes it on note cards or a teleprompter, and tells him to do his best not to go off script, for which the reward is more ice cream.
What has that to do with it? My doctoral degree is in English literature but I'm still called Dr. If you want to change that, change the English language and the university tradition. The title Doctor for scholars goes back to medieval Europe. The PhD or DPhil means Doctor of Philosophy.
a world-class physician??? maybe you are poking gentle fun?? she got a doctorate of education in educational leadership from the University of Delaware in 2007.
Gentle fun, my a**. Everyone knows her doctorate is a joke, and everyone knows that referring to her as "Dr." is an incredible embarrassment to everyone but Dr. and Mr. Biden.
"And she has to decide what her legacy will be as well: an active, participatory, engaged first lady, one of our best in modern times, or the person who said to her husband, ..."
Sounds more like he's saying her legacy will be decided by whether she instructs her husband to step out of the race.
This was a FUN episode. I have to disagree with Tyler on inflation. While it's down year over year, prices are still very high. I always base it on the index ratio for the TIPS (treasury inflation protected securities) I bought on 4/15/2021 where the baseline index ratio was 1.00. On 12/31/2023, the index ratio was 1.17321. That means since April 2021 CPI has increased 17.321%. That's A LOT! Thankfully for 2023 the increase was only 3.685% because I have to pay taxes on that phantom income.
I am surprised that doubling the number of chicken coupons we give out and importing 10 million people who eat food and going to war with the country that makes fertilizer affected the price of chicken.
Look, let’s try to focus on the Oath Keepers, alright?
The reason they haven’t charged Trump with insurrection in DC, even though they could charge him with being a ham sandwich and get a conviction, is because they would have to connect him to the Oath Keepers who were charged with sedition.
But they can’t do that because then Trump’s attorneys would get discovery and the Oath Keepers are mostly Feds so we can’t have that.
Prices will never come down over-all, although some volatile things like gasoline and meat and houses can fluctuate more down than up. If inflation goes to zero, it just means prices aren't increasing. Only with deflation do prices come down, but deflation causes wars. Stick with low inflation and hope your income keeps up.
I am 72 and still working. I am glad that I am able to. Inflation is not a USA problem, it is a world wide problem. People like to find someone to blame . It is no one person's fault. Covid did not help. Price gougers had a hey day and are still. We are all paying for it.
I think the person in charge at the time was DJT. As I recall, he said Covid would "disappear, poof!" over a million dead because of him. Maybe because of all the deals he negotiated with the Chinese, he was reluctant to take a more aggressive posture to stop travel sooner between China and the US. In any case, he was the president during most of Covid, when the most damage was done. Can't blame Biden for mismanagement; he inherited the mess that Trump made.
You are wrong about price gougers. If Covid (or anything else) causes a shortage of supply, allowing prices to rise moderates demand (preventing hoarding) and simultaneously incents the sellers to find alternative sources of supply to meet demand, albeit at a higher equilibrium price. If you imposed price controls to keep prices low, the buyers would buy up all the stock to hoard it for when prices do eventually go up due to the shortage they aggravated by their hoarding. At a controlled low price, the seller has no incentive to find new stock and just lets people experience shortages.
Do you want expensive toilet paper or do you want no toilet paper? Sure you want plentiful cheap toilet paper but in a pandemic you can't have that always. But sure, old socialists blame price gougers for everything.
The cause of inflation was the rapid increase in the money supply caused by left wing policies.
Weird how you mention all the causes except the one economists tell us was the cause.
Seems like you’re trying to remove culpability from your preferred ideological position rather than discussing the issue in good faith.
Trump started the inflation, Biden and the democrats in congress threw it into overdrive. The poverty rate under their rule has increased 4% to the highest it’s been in decades and yet they blame “corporate greed” and “market fundamentalism”
If that’s so why did the poverty rate wait to rise only when massive economic redistribution policies were enacted? That’s not the market, that’s not corporations, that’s the government.
Lastly, corporate profits increased because prices increased. Prices increased because of the massive increase in demand relative to supply. Profits are not the cause of inflation, merely a symptom, and if corporate profits are a problem to you then you shouldn’t advocate in favor of left wing economic policies.
Corporate profits are a problem on both sides of the aisle. Do you think the millionaire and billionaires in Congress are going to vote against their own interests? Poverty increases for many reasons -IMO, because of the prevalence of single parent families; because of the lack of emphasis of importance of education, reading and critical thinking..what "massive economic redistribution programs" are you talking about? I dont see any poor people suddenly becoming middle class.
“what "massive economic redistribution programs" are you talking about? I dont see any poor people suddenly becoming middle class.”
That’s because economic redistribution programs do not remedy poverty, they perpetuate it. During covid trillions in spending bills were passed, such as the “inflation reduction act,” with the express goal of redistributing wealth. The opposite has happened, as anticipated by critics of the bills. These last few years have seen more money spent on social programs than any administration previously (Trump was horrendous on this as well don’t get me wrong, he spent like a drunk sailor) yet poverty has increased. This is because poverty cannot be cured by centralized planners, it is cured by expanding the economic pie through market based solutions, absorbing as many people into the economy and then promoting non profits and religious institutions that build community bonds and pick up the slack where pure market actors have not.
I agree with you about single parents and disregard for education. I would add drug addiction, mental health and the decline of religion as well.
I’m a strong believer in free markets, I do not think it’s ever been seriously tried but I think the evidence is overwhelming that the cure to poverty (the default position of humanity) is trade.
Hey Chris, leave me alone. you have no idea. The abundance and liberty was so outstanding, without a HS diploma I'm living very well, at age 86 this month. I just really hate to see it all going to hell, for the rest of ya, sincerely. We ain't going back to work, we're just going to get the hell out of here, just in time. Thanks for the memories.
I think he means "get the hell outta here" as in leaving the Earth. I feel so blessed to have grown up in the 80s, I saw so many places "unspoiled" even at the ripe old age of 60...Cancun, the ski resorts of CO. Cancun was a ghost town when we first visited, it was spectacular. Now it's spoiled.
In other words Biden can never recover from this. The best he can hope for is to not cause more inflation, but he does not get any credit for stopping inflation because it has not stopped. Prices are still unforgivably high compared to when he entered office.
Yikes. Bummer. The cream is not rising to the top anymore. We are putting ourselves at risk as a country by allowing schools to operate graduating students far below grade level and far below international ranking. We are putting ourselves at risk by forcing our military to be injected with experimental vaccines which do not prevent transmission of a disease for which young people are at very low risk. We are putting ourselves at risk by allowing our environment and food supply to be saturated with chemicals banned in other countries. And why—after a “war on terror”which involved giving up significant individual rights—is our border suddenly open to millions, no questions asked? Biden is so arrogant, he doesn’t even try to justify it. In addition, why were thousands of competent firefighters and nurses and pilots fired for not getting vaccinated while non-citizens were allowed to stream unvaccinated into the country? Stop pretending this makes any sense. We have to stop selling off our future piece by piece. We need the best, brightest, and most ethical back. At this point we can’t afford anything less.
We need to end all childhood vaccines. They have been poisoning humans from day one for far too long. American's, both Childhood and adult health is in the crapper. We watched in real time how an injection can cause problems on mass scale. V injured people are coming out of the woodwork every where and not just from cv19 but all vaccines. The more we are allowed to talk about it the more people will come forward. We have all been complacent and programmed, but if you actually do the reading and the research into the history of vaccines and disease (polio) the industry is built on a foundation of lies. Read Dissolving Illusions for a deep look into the history and how we have been lied to. Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects. Until we as a society can tackle this fundamental wrong and evil that is being done to us, we can't really be free.
Note: I am not entertaining naysayers or vax zealots or bots. This is my opinion based on much reading and not mainstream information which is all bought and paid for my pharma. If you can't grasp the concept that the entire industry is built on a foundation of lies, you don't have the heart and soul to grasp how bad the situation is for humans.
This isn't your personal Facebook page. Ending all childhood vaccines would lead to a disease resurgence the likes of which we haven’t seen since the early 20th century. Just because the covid Vax was a debacle of historic proportion doesn't mean that all vaccines are bad.
Excellent, thanks. This bit, "I am not entertaining naysayers or vax zealots or bots. . . . If you can't grasp the concept that the entire industry is built on a foundation of lies, you don't have the heart and soul to grasp how bad the situation is for humans," seems shocking in a comments thread.
Everyone my age, somewhat younger and somewhat older, sports a tell-tale smallpox star on upper arm or thigh. Children compared them all the time. ("Where's yours?")
The polio vaccine? Remember waiting in line quietly at PS 154 to get that sugar cube.
All you are illustrating here is your deep programming.
My words may shock, but it's time for everyone to be shocked about what we have been doing to our children and ourselves all based on a foundation of lies.
60 years from now they will teach people about Covid and how the V saved lives and omitted from that history lesson will be all the bad and evil that happened and how most of it was lies. But we know that, because we lived it. But will people in 60 years know that? No. Not unless some non-programmed people dig deeply to find the truth.
Take that entire playbook and place it on Polio and the like. All lies.
Read Dissolving Illusions - The industrial revolution with all it's chemicals pumping into the air, water and food was poisoning people. People were becoming sick even paralyzed from chemical poisoning in the water, air and food. It's all well documented. It wasn't done intentionally, but it was happening. Progress must move forward, so all the industrial poisoning was labeled a disease "Polio". A polio diagnosis was given to so many for so many different things (think gun shot victim testing positive for covid) - then they created a vaccine for polio and at the same time started to relabel conditions that would previously be labeled polio something else and magically polio disappeared. It was all lies and illusions and people bought it.
Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects.
Nope, it's the comments section on a Substack that I am a paying subscriber and one of the reasons is so that I can have a voice.
You said: "Ending all childhood vaccines would lead to a disease resurgence the likes of which we haven’t seen since the early 20th century".
That sounds like a state media talking point. We've all been saying it. We all have been repeating lines like that our entire lives. But do we know if they are actually true?
I am just asking people to rethink everything we know. We watched how they lied about COVID and the vaccine. We watched it in real-time. But I am supposed to believe that they didn't lie about polio or the polio vaccine. Why? Because some low IQ news reporter told me this as fact. Nope. There are much more intelligent people talking about these topics in a more truthful and honest way. There are so many books that tell the history of vaccines and how it's all been built on a foundation of lies.
The simple fact that the vaccine manufacturers are not liable for harms.
In what other industry would this be okay?
But we suspend all logical thought when presented with that information.
The simple fact that all of our three letter agencies, medical journals, media, and experts take funding from the pharmaceutical companies.
How do people not see the conflict of interest there?
Again, we suspend all logical thought when presented with that information.
It baffles me that people can't see through the OBVIOUS BS.
But it seems to be part of the human psyche.
When we watch a movie that has a far-fetched plot we suspend all logical thought so that we can be entertained. Right?
This is clearly what is happening in real life. People suspend all logical thinking to go along with the herd so that they won't be called a name. A name that was created by the monster that is harming us. This is deep programming. We don't have to continue on this way.
Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects. And until we stop serving up our children to be guinea pigs for pharma we are not free. PERIOD!
Lori, I have also done years of in depth research into this subject after having something happen to one of my children. I agree with you 100%. People have no idea the depth to which we have all been brainwashed, lied too, and our children injured so billions of dollars could be made. And our government is complicit because the pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued for injuring a child. There are 72 vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule today, some given 3 and 4 at a time. I would encourage anyone that before you give the knee jerk reaction of all deadly diseases recurring, really do the research as to when these diseases ended and why, when the vaccines were introduced, what is in them and what the ingredients do, the fact that we have traded short term acute illnesses that strengthen immune systems for long term chronic illnesses that are also deadly and debilitating, and what these ingredients do to the immune system as well as the brain. There are many books and papers, written by doctors and scientists, so much information. Candace Owens did a whole series called a Shot In The Dark that was very informative. The Children’s Health Defense has so much information. Understand that there has never been a study about the safety of childhood vaccines. Doctors only know what pharmaceutical companies tell them and what they learned in medical schools funded by the pharmaceutical companies and they get bonuses for the vaccines they give. It is all about money. The bottom line is that parents need to be making intelligent, informed decisions based on facts and knowing the risks and no one should be forced to put something in a healthy baby or child they don’t want to and have to live with the consequences.
AMEN! I find it interesting that those who've done the deep-dive research into this topic come to the same conclusions as you and Lori. While those who haven't (and STILL take the media/government at their word, even after the last 4 years!) blindly parrot the tired talking points we see in this thread. I am encouraged, however, that more people are finally willing to remove the wool from their eyes. PS, sorry about your child.
Lori, my sister nearly died from polio in the early 1950s - then we got the Salk/Sabin vaccine. Today, polio is nearly extinct. Every kid gets the MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccine for a good reason - it saves lives and avoids community outbreaks. COVID vaccines have saved millions of lives; don’t confuse the inept rollout campaign with the overall efficacy and safety of the vaccine itself.
And by your post, you are indeed echoing the anti-vax zealots.
I feel the phrase “anti-vax zealots” is unfair. The fact is the public is drastically ill informed about the details of our childhood vaccine program. In 1986 a law was passed granting pharmaceutical companies (who lobbied for it) no liability for their products. I am not aware of any other product—mandated to boot!—for which the manufacturers have zero liability. Since that law passed, the childhood vaccine schedule has tripled. Most citizens are unaware that many developed countries have far fewer vaccines for children . During that time period as well, chronic disease in American children has risen alarmingly, from 12 percent to over 50 percent. This topic bears much more scrutiny than it has received. A Hep B vaccine, for example, which is given at birth in this country, was tested for five days in less than 200 children, a vastly inadequate and underpowered study.
You say don't confuse the inept Covid rollout campaign, but that was the wake up call. Because we were, as adults who are paying attention, watched how the entire campaign was built on a foundation of lies. This sent a lot of us searching for information about the past and the past revealed the same foundation of lies. Over and over again the same foundation of lies. I know, believe me, how unpopular it is to say the things I am saying, but it's time they are said. The polio vaccine did not cure polio. There are mountains of information on this topic that I couldn't possibly share here. I realize that people want to believe we have not been lied to and I understand that. It's takes an open-minded person to see through all the societal programming.
60 years from now they will teach people about Covid and how the V saved lives and omitted from that history lesson will be all the bad and evil that happened and how most of it was lies. But we know that, because we lived it. But will people in 60 years know that? No. Not unless some non-programmed people dig deeply to find the truth.
Take that entire playbook and place it on Polio and the like. All lies.
Read Dissolving Illusions - The industrial revolution with all it's chemicals pumping into the air, water and food was poisoning people. People were becoming sick even paralyzed from chemical poisoning in the water, air and food. It's all well documented. It wasn't done intentionally, but it was happening. Progress must move forward, so all the industrial poisoning was labeled a disease "Polio". A polio diagnosis was given to so many for so many different things (think gun shot victim testing positive for covid) - then they created a vaccine for polio and at the same time started to relabel conditions that would previously be labeled polio something else and magically polio disappeared. It was all lies and illusions and people bought it. There are many details to the above story that can't be written here, but if you are interested in the topic please read Dissolving Illusions. It will surely open your eyes to decades of deceit.
Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects.
Candace Owen has an entire series on Measles in her "Shot in the Dark" series on childhood vaccines. Measles are not deadly. The vaccine for measles is more deadly and harmful than getting measles. The package insert, which no one reads, for the MMR vaccine is quite eye-opening and would send anyone walking away from it if they took the time to read it. But we have been programmed to go along. I for one am glad that so many eyes have been opened. Childhood vaccination is at an all time low.
Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects.
Agree, however, what about striving to point out why the polio vaccine served to eradicate polio, whereas we ain’t getting rid of the flu. If you can explain that to , say, my grandmother, you’ll be a hero.
100%, Lori. Thanks for this post and all your followups. Another great book is Turtles All the Way Down. Actually, there are many more, as well. Reading through the responses to you, it seems there are still so many people in the dark about this subject. Fortunately, covid has cracked that darkness, through which light is penetrating and will flood in soon enough. Keep fighting the good fight.
Watch out for the chemicals. Since the Industrial Revolution, countless millions have died from dihydrogen monoxide, which just happens to be the main component of acid rain.
“Let’s just imagine that there is a Taiwan crisis and they send two aircraft carrier groups, and the Chinese just sink both the carriers”
————————————————————
Yes but remember how we saved 14% on low quality products for a while and closed all those gross factories?
I love how the bill for the actual cost of ‘free trade’ is coming due at the exact same time that David From is telling me that overthrowing the government of Russia is actually going to be quite cost effective.
We would sink 2 Chinese carriers if China sent them to support a a takeover of Catalina island. No problem. When you are near the shore of a nation with a powerful, modern, military, you are likely to lose.
Warships are mostly for fighting other warships. In the age-old contest between ship and shore artillery, the shore usually wins, just because a ship is a much much bigger target that is easier to see and more fragile than a well-dug in artillery piece (or rocket launcher.) The only way the navy can survive against shore installations is to stay outside the kill radius. That only works if it can shoot farther than the shore guns. Naval rifles were much bigger up to the 1950s than any guns mounted on shore but that all changed with aircraft and cruise missiles.
I think they say that China can hit ships 1000 miles out to sea. That is farther than carrier strike aircraft can fly and get back to the ship unless you arrange for aerial refueling, but that takes up deck space for the tanker planes and requires the unarmed tankers to fly partway into harm's way. Ship-launched cruise missiles have to know what they are looking for on shore. The land-launched missiles already know, and China has enough of them to swarm the carrier's defences and sink her.
Conclusion: Don't sail within 1000 miles of China. Launch a nuke from a submarine lurking off shore.
Good bit there. Accurate. One quibble in two parts: 1. a submarine lurking offshore has no way to know if it is detected or not. China would have excellent sub detection defenses by now. And of course, as in much of spycraft, if you detect the sub, you give no indication until there is a good reason to act. 2. launching a nuke is not a step you would take in that instance, because it is pretty final. Launch a nuke at China's mainland from offshore, and they will retaliate at least double at our mainland. A full-on exchange would take us both out forever.
My understanding is that the United States Navy knows that its nuclear-powered submarines have not ever been tracked by either Russia or China and that the PLA Navy cannot sink an American sub with enough confidence that it can deny their territorial waters to them. This could be wrong but that claimed invisibility is the basis of the Trident deterrent and likely applies to the attack subs that launch non-nuclear cruise missiles and sink Chinese ships with torpedoes. But you are of course right. Early use of nuclear warheads against Chinese military targets would not be a good idea except on Armageddon Day.
You are right as to what is in the public sphere. I think it is funny that people think our military capability is recorded in the public sphere though. Having grown up in a military family I feel very confident that the public sphere is mostly just what our military industrial complex wants to have our enemies know. China fear reminds me of Soviet fear right before the wall came down. Their greatest ability was in keeping down their own population.
Thank you for that perceptive comment. As Winston Churchill said after the Battle of Britain which on paper looked like it would be a slam-dunk for the Luftwaffe, “Mr. Hitler said England would have its neck wrung like a chicken. I can only say, Some chicken! Some neck!” (Quoting freely from memory.)
You ever think how it was trade between "neighbors" started everything? Opposite John Rawls thinking, I think everybody should make due with what they were born to. With that I put forth there is no "free will," because I had nothing to do with being here. Everything follows....
So if I can grow only potatoes I should just eat them forever? Not sell my surplus to my neighbour who raises meat and can't grow potatoes but would like to eat mine? Wouldn't we both be better off if we can both eat steak and frites, even if I have to give him a lot of potatoes in return for one steak? From there you are sending camels to China to bring back silk and spices to Venice.
yeah yeah yeah, I know all that. That really isn't what I was talking about, but I'll take you on anyway, up close. See, dammit, I was born into a farming family. I hated it, but that's beside the point. See, lovely Susan (I'm sure -- all the Susan's I knew were lovely), if you can grow potatoes, you can also grow carrots and beans and tomatoes and lettuce, and have cows for milk and beef and hogs and pigs for ham sandwiches and bacon, and chickens for eggs and Sunday dinners, and have horses and mules for power, and everything else, like wheat in the field for bread and corn for good poo poos. You don't need no stinking trade, because the guy down the road has the same stuff. But, trade is fun, it's a pastime. It creates tension, melodrama and sometimes real drama. Without it we wouldn't have Charles Dickins No thinker, besides me, has ever questioned trade, that I know of. Maybe it's time to just throw a thought at it. I did, and I went, "Oh oh, huh."
Frank luntz has completely jumped the shark. Not a doctor Jill is a grasping greedy person who clearly doesn’t want to have to be alone with Joey. Hence she’ll never relax her grip on the WH. Dems are stuck with Joey.
Frank Luntz for all intents & purposes had a nervous breakdown rather publicly, then he retreated as a result of 2016. He couldn't get a grip, he practically cried when he gave interviews - so I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say.
I want to know more about this nervous breakdown. I used to regard Frank for his good read on public opinion. He doesn't seem to be all that good anymore. Everyone seems to be working within the borders of narrative land and that strikes me as disingenuous.
How about a vow, nobody votes for idiots that support the government telling you how to live your life. Vote for freedom of thought and actions. No DEI or men are women, just vote for whoever says, you the American can decide your future and what you want to be.
Because the lapdog legacy media is just following their Establishment marching orders. Which is why RFK Jr's campaign is trailblazing through the alternative, independent and podcast channels.
I think about her because of her physical and emotional proximity to the President. This is particularly true given his cognitive decline. She may be having significant influence on U.S. policies both at home and abroad. I have not seen any suggestion that she stays out of politics. Again, I think of the Woodrow Wilson example.
That is a possibility. How much her views differ or not from Joes is unknown. At any rate, I think, but can't prove that Joe's policies are made by other people. I doubt that he makes any of his own, in contrast to Trump, who had to be talked out his own policies. or at least his ideas. It's not a policy until it's signed.
You know about a year ago or so Instagram was seemingly trying to force feed the word "rizz" into my vocabulary. It was so aggressive in this behavior that I started actively flagging posts with the word in it. I am never up to date on lingo the kids are using, but this felt like the company itself was trying to make "fetch" happen for some nefarious corporate marketing proof to advertisers. I know it has an "origin" but I often wonder if you looked closer at that story of where it came from you might discover there is some historical engineering involved. The internet has me suspicious of everything these days :D
Matt Taibbi did a serious and ascerbic critique of Ferguson’s position, pointing out that more than 50% of Americans are tired of the endless wars and their costs. He lumped Ferguson in with the elites and hawks at the Hoover Institute who roll their eyes at the idea that average Americans ought to have a say in how their country is run. Generally I like Ferguson and the “Goodfellows’ podcast the Hoover guys do, but Taibbi made me think, and I tend to agree. Enough with the world policeman stuff. Fight your own damn wars.
But someone needs to keep the sea lanes secure for commerce. Britain's Royal Navy used to do that. Maybe the United States doesn't need to defend Taiwan. But it has to keep chokepoints open like the Straits of Malacca. The United States would suffer if someone else choked them.
My brain agrees with you, but my heart says why would anyone point their children towards the military after the politicians so totally f'd up Afghanistan! Seems our political leaders learned nothing in Vietnam.
I agree, but you still have to live with the decisions that they make. Military recruiting goals are being missed and I am running into ex-cops who are leaving because their leaders do not have their backs.
How can anyone still believe that? The ONLY thing our military fights for is hegemony and imperialism. NOT "democracy." NOT "human rights." NOT "national security." It is all, and will only ever be, about the Benjamins.
You do know that you can't just decide to move to Canada and expect them to let you stay. I mean people do overstay their visitor privileges and disappear but you can't claim asylum to stay legally. If you get caught you will be deported back to the U.S.. You can apply to immigrate but you need to have a job offer. A lot of draft dodgers and deserters came north during the Vietnam war and claimed asylum but we got tired of them bumming around the college quads smoking dope and giving our women chlamydia so we changed the law so that America is a safe third country. No one can claim asylum at the border anymore.
Seriously. How do you think the Royal Navy kept its wooden-wall sailing ships manned for two centuries against the steady trickle of desertion, accidents, buggery, disease, and, occasionally, battle casualties? Impressment of anyone of seafaring age unlucky enough to come into the clutches of a press gang in a harbour town, that's how. Even merchant sailors returning to England after a long voyage from, say, India would fear the sight of a king's ship flying the white ensign in the roads to Portsmouth because they knew they were likely to be boarded and press't into His Majesty's service, within site of home. Different times.
I read the Taibbi piece you mentioned but I arrived late and didn’t have the time or energy to take on 300 people. I think Matt is dead wrong on this issue as I have elaborated on somewhere around here. His viewpoint is understandably colored by our bungled efforts in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, among others. But he overlooks the fact that the world has avoided a world war since the 1940’s, despite the continued efforts of communist countries.. it’s sad to say, but that’s a long time, historically speaking. This isn’t an accident or anomaly. They are the result of Pax Americana. Absent the U.S. - and I’m speaking to students of history, not those ignorant of history - how long do you think it will be before global order collapses into a free for all? It will not be years, it will be months, and the world will descend into what could be centuries of chaos and extremism. It won’t help us at all.
Well, over 50% of Americans disagree. I bet the residents of East Palastine, Ohio are among them.
As we throw billions, even trillions at forever wars, our nation crumbles. If we spent more on developing a chip technology, developing our own energy, becoming strong and independent, would it matter if Russia and Ukraine agreed to a cease fire? Why did America intrude on Putin’s peace offer with Ukraine almost two years ago? Why did Biden trash Trump’s Abraham Accords? Why does Biden keep funneling money to Iran? Why does Biden laughably talk with Xi about climate change and not his threats in the south China Sea? As other have noted, we have become a laughing stock internationally. So our solution is to keep indebting ourselves to financial collapse as a way to appear relevant?
I would say our inability to enforce our own laws leaves our border wide open. It’s not normally the role of the U.S. military to police our borders, but with the chaos down there now, who knows if that will change.
It doesn’t concern me that 50% of Americans disagree with me. That’s the whole point of forums like this. And I completely agree that Biden’s foreign policy - a continuation of Obama’s - is at best incoherent. We need better policies to promote things like advanced chip production here. An example: Taiwan Semi has a brand new plant ready to go in NW Phoenix, but they can’t find engineers in the U.S. to staff it (no shortage of DEI officers, I’m sure). They asked to bring in engineers from Taiwan to get it going and train up an American workforce, but those immigration visas were not available. With an open southern border-can you imagine? So it sits idle. I don’t even need to mention U.S. energy policy, because everyone already knows how looney it is. Regulatory policy is an area where Trump was far more effective than Biden, no question there.
Sadly, wars will be with us indefinitely whether we like it or not. Over 40% of S&P 500 earnings come from overseas, including much of our incremental growth. A domestic military strategy is not compatible with global markets. Emotionally I too want to retreat from the world’s conflicts. Intellectually, though, I think it would be a colossal mistake. We can fight fewer, shorter wars if we fight to win them overwhelmingly. We don’t do that anymore, and it has the perverse effect of making things worse.
I go back and forth with this question. There is no doubt 20 years ago we started to slowly pull away from the globalist assumptions. We are now in full flight back to a more regionalist approach. I am liking the idea of sending old weapon systems and no troops to countries fighting off parties that are not friendly to the USA and its interest. Bringing back manufacturing to the US is also a good trend. So, I think you are basically getting your wish, just in a slow and different way.
Especially since we’re printing endless dollars to support a war machine. Ending that creamery of corruption will have to end from within, as a political revolution of sorts. I don’t see any politician, even including the “anti-war” statesman, who would support a demilitarization. Even though, that’s exactly what we need.
I think we should defend our allies and the west generally because our civilization is superior to the others and worth defending. This requires intervening in other countries on occasion when they are senselessly attacked.
This isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan we’re talking about, these are allies fighting to stay alive. To turn our backs on them simply because one has plugged their ears and convinced themselves anyone who disagrees with them is advocating for “forever wars” and “doesn’t care about America,” is foolish. Don’t conflate the wars of the early 2000s with our friends just trying to survive.
Niall Ferguson is exactly right. Many Americans understandably want to "fix our problems at home", as if that's even happening, and they assume we can't do two things at once. That's not fair - our government disgraced us all in Afghanistan and slow walks aid to Ukraine, all the while botching COVID and abandoning any pretense of controlling our southern border. So it's clear our government can do multiple things at once.
To put Ferguson's point more plainly, Americans live in a fantasy land where they wear peace signs and are reflexively anti-war. Ah, the luxury of being children in a country that has not been invaded, its people slaughtered - one of the few on earth. OK, have it your way - let's say we withdraw from the rest of the planet and retreat to our shores... What happens?
First, look at all the items in your house. Most of them are from overseas. Well, that ends. Products become much more narrow, and scarce. We have money but little to spend it on. Inflation soars. With half of the S&P 500's marketplace gone and global financing shrinking, the Stock and Bond Markets both crash. Millennials favor experiences over things. But overseas travel narrows to places like Mexico and Hawaii as the rest of the world devolves into regional wars without the restraint of Pax Americana, no matter how imperfect it was. Our longstanding allies, lacking any deterrent, quickly develop nuclear, chemical and biologic weapons arsenals. Regional alliances and rivalries re-emerge, and war becomes ubiquitous as China takes Taiwan, South Korea "negotiates" with the North and an isolated Japan goes on war footing. Africa becomes a shooting gallery, and the Mideast erupts as Iran and Turkey fight to control the region. Israel fights for its life. Russia helps itself to its former USSR territories and then some, as Putin has long advocated. Europe does what Europe always does. Global warming ceases as a topic of conversation. In an increasingly dangerous world, the U.S. government becomes more authoritarian, because we can't risk the chaos we're seeing overseas. Who will be the targets of future crackdowns remains to be seen.
Yes, it's unfair we have to be the world's policeman. Yes, it's expensive. In fact, the whole thing is terrible. It's just that, in today's world, the alternative is worse. Much, much worse.
Because the Europeans and Canadians knew you Americans were more afraid of international communism than they were. So they played you, getting the defence against it for essentially free while they spent their tax money on pensions and welfare and socialized medicine and public transit.
It is our defense deficits that support much of the world's wealth. In the modern world, all money is also debt. The deficit "debt" of the government is the money that the private sector in the USA, Europe, China, Canada, India, have as positive wealth.
Congress knows. It's all a game. We cannot bankrupt except by essentially shooting ourselves in the head.
Thank you so much for your comment. How do you view all the rants on Substack insisting we withdraw from NATO, dismantle the MIC, etc. in their views the US is the cause of wars, not the deterrent to wars. I grew up with parents/ family who lived through and/or served in WWII. It got ground into me that the US and NATO were essential to keeping the world from nuclear war. Traveling has convinced me that many peoples in 3rd world countries to Europe look to us for aid, assurance, guidance. We have our problems, our corruption...but tell me what nation does not. As long as we can hold together and reunite...somehow, someway, I guess I’d rather be here than anywhere else. Unfortunately somehow, someway seems impossible in 2024. Maybe Biden appears weak, but Trump? Heaven help us.
No, just heaven help you get over the TDS. If you even remotely think that we are in any way better than when Trump was president, you are truly delusional. I don't particularly want Trump back either, but we will not survive another Biden term because that's actually Kamala. Think about it.
We are better off now. By many metrics. I think this country can survive 4 years of most anyone. Republican hopefuls or Democrat, certainly Kamala. But not another 4 years of Trump. I’ve never felt that about any candidate before, and I’ve voted in presidential elections for more than 40 years. Won some, lost some but always knew there’d be another election in 4 years. even if he would agree to step down after 4 years, the mess this vindictive, vengeful, narcissistic autocratic man would leave our institutions and reputation in, I can’t imagine. Read Sea Sentry again. We don’t live in this world alone.
I just didn't feel we were so bad off under Trump. I am horrified by the obvious corrupt money machine the Bidens are, and even more so at the people who simply dismiss it because he's not Trump. Never mind the origins of the money. The Mafia- like distribution schemes. That doesn't raise some red flags in your world? Damn!
Are you familiar with Trumps family business history? His complete lack of decency or integrity? Calling fallen soldiers suckers? Using verbiage straight from Nazi propaganda? What about taking money from foreign countries while in office? All he had to do is go to Congress and clear it but no, he’s above the law. The documents, just give them up but no, he’s above the law. Just concede the election, run again in four years, but no, he’s above the law. Just get some fake electors to help out. J6…just Call. It. Off. But no, he watched it happen and this country is torn apart. What about Kushner getting what, a 2 BILLION dollar investment in his new equity firm from the Saudis after working as his FILs advosir to SA? And didn’t disclose it, he’s above the law. 91 indictments….and don’t tell me they are political. No way. You and I would be sitting in jail somewhere by now but he isn’t because, he’s above the law.
91 indictments….surely the Republicans can do better. And despite 5,6 years of investigation(started by Trump)…not a single indictment not even a smoking gun. I’ll take my chances on Biden. And yes Kamala.
I could change a few names and words here and there and that would sound like a a Hunter Biden diary entry. What's your point? I was still better off under Trump. So was the country. And the world (except those poor TDS sufferers, bless your hearts). Things have become pretty unsettled since Joe took over. Have you not even noticed?
What I notice about rabid Trump supporters is their aggressiveness.
I, for one, have never been a Democrat. I had been a Republican and then became an Independent because I did not like the evangelical, born-again Christian slant the GOP began taking in the 1990s.
Hunter Biden fills me with loathing. He's much worse than Trump's sons, who seem to have inherited their father's nasty streak but not his brains.
I am not a fan of Joe Biden, leftists, leftist antisemites, BLM, DEI, New York City politicians, or pro-Hamas gay people (surely one of the strangest alliances in town).
But you can pretend to know what I believe because I think Donald Trump's performance as president was, in general, disgraceful -- and despite my having said I thought some of his policies were very good. You feel you "know" me purely because I do not believe Trump is a hero.
You are are confusing character weaknesses with leadership ability. We are all aware of the litany of sins that Trump has committed. I think you left out a few. Are you going easy on him? :-) And yet he leads in the polls despite 91 indictments. Which is silly. No one has committed 91 felonies. Make it an even 100 and he will be a shoo-in.
Are all those people who are planning to vote for him stupid and willing to throw away their freedom to fascism? Maybe they are just sick of the oppressor/oppressed totalitarian view of everything and know that for all Trump's bluster and crassness, he can't change the Constitution by himself.
In your previous comment you say, "Even if would agree to step down after 4 years". That's not how it works. He doesn't have to agree or concede anything. At noon on Inauguration Day, January 2029, President Trump's term will end. Period. At that moment, the new president will have been sworn in and the Secret Service detail and the nuclear football will be transferred (with new codes) to the newly sworn-in president. If D. Trump, private citizen, remains sulking in the White House, the DC Capitol police will come and arrest him for trespassing. It doesn't change the fact that on that day he is no longer president. There is nothing he can do to change that. You are creating worries where none exist, which is what we mean by Trump Derangement Syndrome. All you have said is that you don't like Trump. Tough. He's likely to be the next president. Get used to it.
Biden’s shell companies? Aliases? Payments to just about every family member for no services rendered? This is just for starters. How about allowing millions of non-citizens to flow into the country, no questions asked, and then flying them to different cities at night during a pandemic? Can a President just unilaterally decide to ignore immigration law? What about those poor democrats in Martha’s Vineyard who hosted a handful for about one day? A political stunt! How horrible and insensitive. But having thousands camping around the country, no big deal.
Ann, I agree with you. New Yorkers (well, many of us New Yorkers) will never forget that Donald Trump promised the Bonwit Teller friezes -- high Art Deco -- to the Met and then sent wreckers in one night and destroyed them. "They weren't much anyway," he said casually when the museum questioned him.
Or that countless lawyers and contractors he'd hired had to sue him for salaries due. He countersued in court until they ran out of money and gave up.
Or all the banks (and investors) left holding the bag when he went bankrupt four -- more? -- times. He has no conscience.
Which doesn't mean I don't appreciate his moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Or his recognizing that we cannot absorb and support millions of migrants lacking language skills or perhaps any skills. And yes, I know they're the guys who reroof people's houses. There are just so many roofs that need redoing.
Trump with his name writ large is all he's interested in. It's a problem. It makes him testy and unreliable and money-hungry.
Ann22, allow me to reassure you that the Dept of Justice, the Dept of State, the intelligence services,... all of our govt agencies agree with you and are willing to lie, falsify evidence and launch spurious investigations to remove Trump from office. They will further cover up criminality by a political rival to prevent Trump from winning an election. Nothing to worry about! The govt has got this under control.
Nonsense. We all witnessed him hoarding documents, we have all seen and heard evidence of the fake elector scheme and his total lack of action to stop J6 before it got so out of hand, we all hear him continuing to tell the stolen election lies. People who supported him and carried out the illegal schemes he and his lawyers promoted are now sitting in jail , being convicted by juries. Spurious investigations? Hardly. You or I would be in jail right having committed any number of his many offenses.
If it's not Kamala, it may be Jill. Did you ever see the movie El Cid? With AI, how would we even know Joe is gone? I suspect Jill is the underestimated Whisperer to Joe. There is precedent: President Woodrow Wilson had a stroke, and his second wife Edith literally ran the country in his cognitive absence for a couple of years.
A stroke doesn't imply cognitive absence. A single stroke may make it difficult or impossible to speak or communicate, but cognition is not usually impaired. If the Chief Executive could indicate understanding of information given to him and then indicate what his decision was, he would still have capacity to run the nation. Of course I don't know Woodrow Wilson's medical history in detail but the same issue comes up with Sen. John Fetterman. He was widely dismissed as being "cognitively impaired" after his stroke and therefore unfit to take office. News reports indicate that he has dysphasia, typical for a stroke, which makes it difficult to articulate his thoughts. But this does not indicate cognitive impairment and I think the voters of Pennsylvania figured this out and elected him.
I’m not sure what point you are making, but President Wilson’s complete incapacity is not in doubt, nor is the fact that Mrs. Wilson literally ran the United States during his incapacity. I agree strokes can manifest in a variety of ways ranging from mild and/or transitory to severe and irreversible. President Wilson fell into the latter category. President Biden does not have obvious stroke symptoms as Senator Fetterman did for some period, but he indicates clear evidence of cognitive decline that is likely to continue to the point of incapacity. At that point Kamala, Jill and the United States will have to deal with the consequences.
NATO is a 75-year-old pact - at the very least it should be reassessed given a changed world. There's nothing wrong with reevaluating systems. Trump is right about that.
I agree. But since 1945, no nuclear war. Despite terrible nuclear proliferation , Cold War, still no nuclear war. 75 years. Nothing wrong with reassessing, but didn’t Trump want to pull out of NATO?. Read Sea Sentry again. We do not live in this world alone.
Trump wanted to get European nations to pay into NATO the 2% they promised they would but haven't for decades. He at least got some movement on that front - but NATO still needs revision.
The 2% figure is the percentage of the GDP that each NATO country pledged a long time ago to spend on its own defence budget as an indicator that it was pulling its weight. They aren't paying anything "into NATO" for the alliance to spend corporately. You're right that only Britain, France, and the former Iron Curtain countries come close. Most (including Canada) have not come close to 2% for decades and probably never will. There is just too much that seems more pressing (like pensions, welfare, and health care) for an aging population to spend money on. Also, not enough young people want to be soldiers. You can't spend the money if no recruits sign up. You don't want your army composed of Muslim conscripts who can't speak German (or French or Dutch or Italian or Norwegian), do you?
..and so the USA has been subsidizing European defense since the end of WW2. Whenever I hear Europeans brag about their generous welfare and health programs, they should thank the American taxpayer.
Oh you are forgetting the New World Order, where some unelected elites somewhere else in the world are going to run everything EVERYTHING! And they will solve all of the world’s problems!!
I know that argument, the “we have to for the betterment of the world” argument. The, “it might be ugly be we must press on” argument. While your assessment is likely correct for the world that has been built within US hegemony, it is inevitable that empires shift over time. Much of how the US spends its foreign policy energy is frenetically engaging in more or less futile attempts at preserving our dominance of global trade and finance via military conflict after military conflict. In a future with a strong global China (especially in Africa), a Russia that dominates energy and likely grain supply for all of Europe (with a likely win in Ukraine claiming the Dunbas region), many growing nations buying into BRICS, the US is counting its cookies but soon it will only be crumbs. And the more we spend on global conflict the less we spend on strengthening from within.
Yes, if the current system collapses we are at great threat of many negatives and if we can’t figure out how to strengthen our nation from within before that inevitability catches up with us, then the hard times will be even harder. I guess I just think it’s best we get a head start on stabilizing our production, energy supplies, infrastructure, political prowess, before it’s too late and we are forced to “pick up the pieces.”
15 years or so ago, we started the process of unwinding that system in favor of a regional system. Probably about 10 years away from being able to withdraw at this point.
Good comments, Daniel. It's true that empires shift over time, and I think it's pretty clear that, absent dramatic and unlikely changes, the U.S. appears to be heading into a period of decline. I don't agree that we fight wars to "preserve dominance in global trade". Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.
Russia will remain a big player in energy, but hardly dominant. The grain point is a good one. Again, not dominant, but Ukraine is truly one of the world's bread baskets. Your points in some ways reinforce my own. You recognize China's and Russia's ambitions, suggest we disengage from the world. Two questions: (1) do we give the countries we will abandon a window to prepare? And (2) What is our red line? Do we throw out the Monroe Doctrine?
The point about focusing inward to get our house together is emotionally compelling. We'll be picking up the pieces overseas (or not), but perhaps from a position of strength. I personally doubt it but, hey, our internationalist policies haven't worked that well. Maybe we should try what you're suggesting.
Our global influence through military intervention has publicly been justified in many ways. Afghanistan was to weed out terrorists, Vietnam was to defend against communist expansion, Libya was to rid the world of a tyrant. However the justifications, our actions speak louder than the words. US soldiers defended opium fields in Afghanistan and helped the country increase work in the fields in exchange for a favorable deal on pharmaceutical opium (which likely lead to the opiate crisis we are dealing with). Vietnam was intended to create a strong trade center in an attempt to move in to Southeast Asia. Gaddafi, albeit not the icon of peaceful leaders, intended on creating an African currency separate from the dollar and the franc (it was Hillary Clinton’s visit to France while secretary that pushed the US into that conflict). Turn after turn the US has influenced the world stage militarily, and I think strong connections can be made to reason that one of our focuses in each conflict is to substantiate the world’s economic dependence on our markets. Even Ukraine. Only a year before the conflict the US official policy was to leave Ukraine be with some minor aid, and most politicians would have agreed the country is too corrupt to support further. But as Russia is a leading charge in the BRICS movement, I can see why we would find it vital to prevent a Russian win.
I don’t see a full disengagement from the world being possible. Most countries are so interlocked at this point that complete isolation would bring collapse to so many other nations. I do see a re-engagement in our place in the world, and that of our trade partners. What it would look like is impossible to say. It’s likely China still depends too much on our food exports to fully separate, Europe as well. The US has a powerhouse of agriculture that feeds a lot nations. So I see our pulling back from the world stage happening overtime, pending some major policial catastrophe. I don’t see a full retraction, nor would I support one. Of course, all of that is if we have a choice. If our currency falls and we become insolvent, maybe we won’t have a choice. All the more reason to divest in foreign wars.
The Monroe Doctrine was a nice declaration of US independence from Britain. How it has been used over time has been a lot of missteps. Reagan’s contra wars in Nicaragua wasn’t to protect Nicaraguans. US corporate take over of Guatemala and Costs Rica has arguably destroyed populations. And as we see china’s investments into Mexico without the US raising any red flags seems to me we could throw out the idea of a western world not being influenced by others. Again, necessity will dictate how the cards fall. I just think, as you seem to agree to some point, it’s vital we pull back now while we still have a choice.
That was quite a tour de force of mostly left wing anti-capitalist conspiratorial half-truths. I would need a long time to address all of these, and I’m not sure many people care. I will grant, however, that we fight unnecessary wars for superficial reasons. Any military engagement should have a clear set of goals that make sense to Americans, should be fought to prevail quickly and thoroughly, and we should have a good exit strategy when done. Part of our problem is we elect superficial ill-informed idiots to Congress and the White House. It’s much harder to navigate the seas with people who can’t swim, can’t sail and can’t read a compass.
No argument here on the idiots in congress. I am definitely not anti capitalist though. I own a business and am a huge fan of the pro-business tax law in the US.
My views as stated before are the result of me researching each case and having travelled to these countries to interview people. Survivors of the Nicaraguan revolt against, as they called it, United States interference (Reagan’s investment into Nicaragua went into training Hondurans to attack the Mesquite land in eastern Nicaragua) or mayan guatemalans having their land sold to corporations without their input in a deal the US brokered. I mean, it’s terribly easy to find the speeches Gaddafi was giving just months before the US and France air bombed Libya. At this point. It’s funny you’d suspect I’m left wing. I’m a libertarian from South Dakota. I’m fascinated by the amount of people who sheepishly listen to the narrative when we have access to the information ourselves.
Well gee, that’s interesting. I’ve spent time in Nicaragua and Guatemala as well, and I’m fluent in Spanish. Both decry the corruption of their governments, that’s for sure. Every Nicaraguan I spoke to wanted Ortega out. He’s not our guy as you know. Can Cubans be a bad influence too, or just Americans? The Guatemalans I spoke with were mostly campesinos and not very engaged in politics at all. We’ve certainly sullied our reputation with some of our interventions in Latin America, as have others like the Russians and Cubans. But all those Latino countries are often engaged in the same left/right struggles we are still having in the U.S., as well as many territorial disputes over the last century. We are often nowhere to be seen.
The Ghaddafi thing made no sense to me. His vision was to create one Islamic caliphate from Morocco to the Middle East. That went nowhere. His ability to generate a pan-national currency was zero, so that’s not a theory I can buy. Like Ukraine, giving up his nukes was a big mistake. I haven’t heard an explanation that makes any sense for why we would take him out. Now the Russians and Turks control the country through their warlords, and it’s total chaos. Do you have a book or in depth article that delves into Obama’s reasoning?
You seem drunk on the MIC koolaid. We don't need to militarily occupy other countries (i.e. having our bases and/or troops stationed in them) to trade with them, have our multinational corporations in them, to engage in tourism travel to them. As for regional wars breaking out, in most cases the US is the reason for them, rather than the deterrent of them. Most of the global strife is BECAUSE of us. Contrary to your dire (and frankly, baseless) predictions, without US hegemony, the world might actually see PEACE.
Really? Was the U.S. the cause of WW I? How about WW II? Korea? What would a map of the world look like if we stayed home over the last 100 years? If things go your way, we might find out. I do agree that some wars are pretty dumb, Afghanistan and Iraq being recent examples.
I think Americans have to get this notion out of their heads that peace is just around the corner if we all just sing kumbaya and go home. Any reading of history will tell you the world has never seen more than brief stretches of peace, one of the longest being the post WW II Pax Americana period, clearly now coming to an end. One of the interesting things in reading history is to see how many countries hoped for peace or relied on fickle allies and exist no more. There will be wars, and there are better and worse ways to fight aggression from people who don't care about "peace". I'd rather address Russian imperial ambitions in Ukraine, with Ukrainians doing the fighting, than in Poland and the Baltics with us doing the fighting. On the other hand, Taiwan is no more defensible than if China wanted to defend Catalina Island from an American invasion.
I said the global strife and regional wars are because of us, referring to relatively recent history (including Vietnam).
Russia doesn't have "imperial ambitions" in Ukraine or anywhere else. Again, put down the MIC koolaid. Don't believe me, fine. But you can mark my words.
To truly understand what's happening in the world right now requires zooming out to the much bigger picture. There are ultimately only 2 factions at actual war: the West (with its unipolar/one-world ambitions) versus the Rest (with its goals for a multi-polar world). If we could just set aside our greed and lust for global control, and agree to be an equal partner in a world of decentralized power, world peace would be guaranteed.
Sounds like you have your own “the West is bad” kool aid. To say Russia doesn’t have imperial ambitions means you haven’t been listening to what Putin has been saying for some 25 years.
One world ambition is inherent to communism, which China still embraces and Russia did for a long time, adding countries to its fold and fomenting revolution around the world. Are those two countries part of the West?
When someone guarantees that a certain approach will bring peace, it suggests considerable naïveté. I’m guessing you’re pretty young, university educated/indoctrinated and haven’t lived abroad. We can talk about it at the Kool Aid bar. You bring yours, and I’ll bring mine.
I'm 54, graduated college long before wokeness infected higher ed, and have been researching world history for over 20 years. I have lived in Japan, and visited many countries in Asia and Europe. Sorry to burst your presumptuous bubble, but I'm far from naive.
What exactly do you think Putin has been saying? More to the point, what actual COUNTRIES has he taken back under Russian control?
"One world ambition is inherent to communism." -- It's ironic you accuse me of being naive when you state erroneous things like that. In fact, China is not a true communist government, as it has drastically reformed its economic system to include many free-market elements of capitalism. And Russia, as we all know, is a federal republic. Furthermore, it is actually the BRICS+ countries that are leading the endeavor for a multi-polar world. Look up that term. Also look up the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the Eurasia Economic Union. Prominent geopolitical historian Matthew Ehret writes excellent pieces on this topic. Here are a couple of his more comprehensive ones:
What countries has he taken back under Russian control? Well, let's start with Chechnya, which declared independence and was then invaded by the Russian army, with a Russian puppet leader installed. The prextext was the "Chechnyan" bombing of an appartment building, which the FSB's own documents indicated was an inside job.
Then there was the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 after their own declaration of independence, when the latter wanted to align itself with Western Europe.
And of course more recently there's the invasion of Crimea and Ukraine, whose territorial integrity and borders were guaranteed by Russia (and the U.S. and the U.K.) in the 1994 Budapest accords in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
Russia can call itself a "Federal Republic", but everyone knows that's a potemkin characterization - criticize the government or the president, and bad things happen. Ask the many dissidents he has had assassinated or imprisoned.
You say China is not a "true" communist government, as if we decide what form of communism is "true" or not, but the CCP completely controls China. They were just much smarter and less dogmatic than the former USSR in incorporating market principles to fuel their rise. Take a visit over there and criticize Xi or the CCP.
Niall Ferguson's scenario is something we all need to be thinking about. A major middle east conflict (nuclear?) would almost certainly involve the US in a big way (may be even with boots on ground). How many fronts can the US deal with at one time? A perfect storm, the time for Russia and China to make their moves.
"Ukrainians understand what losing is like because they saw Bucha. They saw the bodies in the streets of Bucha. Israelis know what losing is like because they know that October 7 was a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust II. But we don’t really know what losing would mean. And young Americans absolutely have no concept. In fact, young Americans are so complacent about freedom that they’re basically against it now, which is a bizarre turn of events. "
To quote the President that changed everything for me, after being indoctrinated by University of Michigan for four years:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
The wonderful cost-effectiveness of overthrowing Russia by using Ukraine as a proxy war tool.
Let's not forget that Ukraine is so fucking corrupt that Ukraine supplied North Korea with ICBM technology --- while depending on the USA as its ally. Quickly hushed up by Obama. Ukraine is why every American city can now be hit by North Korean missiles. North Korea could take us out in terms of being a well developed nation.
Let's also not forget that Russia has never allowed itself to be overthrown by a foreign power, and that Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. Russia's MIRVs have 0.75 megaton yield each. The USA's have 0.25 megaton yield each. Russia can literally sterilize the entire nation in an hour, coast to coast. They would probably leave Hawaii inhabitable, and large parts of Alaska. Russians like Hawaii, and Alaska used to be theirs.
Russia is also the only nation on the planet prepared for nuclear war. I am the only American Prof. Cohen knew of that had been down inside of a working shelter in the heartland of Russia. Russians are tough and survivors.
Oh shit, and I still have "The Road" recorded.
That's Funny
😂😂😂
The argument goes that Russia's warheads have to have larger yields because their delivery isn't as accurate. According to this argument, the United States and its allies can destroy more targets than Russia can...but of course no one really knows until they use them, and how many would actually launch and detonate? Land-based ICBMs from both sides would have to be launched over the North Pole. The effect of the rotating earth under the trajectory of the missile in this extreme case has never been tested, for obvious reasons, only simulated. Sub-launched ballistic missiles don't have to go over the pole and can be tested in more real-life conditions.
You are certainly correct that the Russian people have shown great resilience and stoic
willingness to suffer and keep fighting, as during the sieges of Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Odessa. If they were told to endure the inevitable American second strike by digging into their gardens, the shelters and bunkers being reserved for commissars or their post-Soviet equivalent, I don't doubt that they would. But Mutual Assured Destruction must still deter the Russian leadership from a first strike, no?
1. When the enemy has enough warheads mounted to incinerate every square mile with triple the explosive power, several times over, any talk of better targeting is academic. There is no coming back from that.it doesn't matter how many submarines or navalgroups survive if there's nothing to come back to.
The USA has, for all practical purposes, no shelters at all. Our housing will burn in firestorms.
2. From having been inside, my report is that the people in the heartland are better equipped than the leadership is. Russia can come through with around 60 million people in shelter with food and water. These are people who could then survive and rebuild. They are just losing their living memory of doing that in previous generations.
3. Any nuclear war with Russia, China, we would lose. We would not come back from it. Game over. A nuclear war with North Korea we would be devastated by.
Of all the nations on earth, the most preparedis Russia. There really is no other that can weather an all-out nuclear war.
The conclusion from that is, don't back Russia into a corner.
Have to fact check your Point #1. The Russian nuclear arsenal is estimated at about 6000, with 1600 strategic. But let's say all 6000 could be delivered onto the U.S.. Surface area of the U.S. is 3 million square miles without Alaska (which, yes, the Russians might well spare.) That means each warhead would have to be able to "incinerate" 500 square miles, or a circle 26 miles in diameter. A megaton might destroy around 100 square miles, depending on the size of the individual warheads. A larger number of smaller warheads destroys more area than one big one of the same yield, hence the appeal of MIRVs if they can be made accurate enough to hit those defined areas of value.
The heat flash from a nuclear weapon is of high intensity but brief. It would not create sustained fires except in buildings and therefore could not "incinerate" anything other than built-up areas. These would already have been destroyed by blast and would provide kindling and fuel load for an urban fire, which could well spread beyond the immediate blast destruction zone, all the firefighting equipment and personnel having been killed. Some forested areas with heavy fuel loads might catch fire if targeted but of course deserts and and mountains above tree line would not burn. (And why would Russia waste its warheads bombing uninhabited wide-open spaces?) So I can't see Russia's entire nuclear arsenal being able to incinerate every square mile of the United States even close to once over, much less thrice over.
So this gets us back to how Russia would use its strategic weapons: to attack ICBM sites in the High Plains far from large cities, naval bases, air bases serving the nuclear bomber force, and to attack cities where the concentration of buildings and people assured high levels of death and destruction per megaton and per warhead. For all these uses, targeting accuracy is important, particularly for hitting ICBM silos. I reiterate that the primary value of the bigger Russian weapons is to allow "close enough" to be effective, particular in the retaliatory strike intended to kill as many Americans as possible. For that you don't need incineration. You need blast destruction of concentrated urban built-up areas. Any fires started are a bonus.
To ensure the destruction of geographically large cities like New York, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles, the Russians might commit a dozen or more warheads to each to allow for impacts outside the circle-error probable. All this is guesswork from an average of 1 megaton per weapon. Many are likely smaller than that and the ginormous 10-50 megaton bombs of yesteryear were so that if a Bear bomber was heavily damaged on its way to New York it could drop its bomb on Tarrytown before it fell out of the sky and still cause havoc in Manhattan., ditto for an ICBM falling short or wide.
I agree that #2 and #3 are correct even if I dispute the literal accuracy of #1. A nuclear exchange would devastate a complex interdependent society like United States/Canada even if the empty spaces were left unscathed and unburned and only five or six cities were struck. The Russians could dig themselves out and rebuild, surviving for a generation or more as stoic peasants.
There are "stoic peasants" in the U.S., too.
The biggest problem is nuclear fallout spread by wind. That is likely to have long-term effects that even "stoic peasants"--whatever their nationality--will have difficulty overcoming.
Honestly, the biggest winner in WWIII is Islam.
They don't need 6000 warheads to destroy us. They just need a dozen detonated in the upper atmosphere to create EMP pulses that fry our data/power networks. Our civilization collapses immediately and 90% of us die within 6 months.
Yes, I’ve heard that for many years. I don’t know how anyone can know that’s what would happen except by exposing electronic parts to EMP in the lab and see if they fry, and then modeling the scale-up. The Canadian Navy used to have some old steam-powered destroyer escorts with vacuum-tube electronics that were said to be more resistant to EMP, and Soviet fighters flown to the west by defectors had vacuum tubes also. Whether that was a deliberate strategy or whether they were just primitive, hard to say. In our ships’ case it was definitely primitive. The resistance to EMP was just sailor humour: if they shoot a missile at us, they’ll sink us, but if they explode a nuke in the stratosphere we can at least still call home.
I like your optimism..(I'm attempting to be satirical)
Your comment brings to mind that memorable line delivered by George C. Scott's character in Dr. Strangelove in discussing an American first strike on the Soviet Union - 'we'll just suffer 20 million casualties, tops!!'
My favourite movie, ever. Gotta make sure we don't suffer from a "mine-shaft gap".
Somebody on another blog pointed out that Major Kong and his B-52 crew were the only people in the whole movie who properly carried out their jobs as intended. (Although I suppose Group Captain Mandrake did, too, in getting the recall codes from Gen. Ripper even though it wasn't in his job description.)
Seems to me, after all the BILLIONS $$$, weapons and even soldiers we have sent to Ukraine, USA should be pushing Ukraine to some kind of war ending deal with Russia. Same with Hamas~~~STOP sending them $$$ and aid and force them to surrender.
With a nation that has had its young flee to avoid service? Some of them post on twitter from their safe havens in Europe. A nation that is conscripting 45-50 year olds? And let's not forget the billions stolen by Ukraine's gangsters in charge.
You think that of all nuclear nations the most prepared is Russia. But I'm not so sure they know that.
Oh, they know. Russia staged the largest Civil defense exercise in history in 2016. That was in response to some democrat wackos speechifying about having to launch a first strike from submarines offshore.
A first strike by anyone could be ruinous for everyone when the response comes back. The earth could well be made uninhabitable merely for all the radiation lingering for multiple decades in the atmosphere, long after the physical destruction is done. Russia would not be immune, in my opinion.
All the Swiss have to have air-raid shelters in their homes.
Nuclear winter. That is a deterrent all by its lonesome. Recall a volcanic eruption occuring in Iceland in 2010. Eyjafjallajökull erupted for about one week in April and subsequently interrupted travel and communications across Europe. Do you think global leadership might take this byproduct of multiple atmospheric thermonuclear detonation into consideration?
No. Of course not
I wonder if you're correct about this?
Since when has global leadership ever looked to short or long term consequences of anything they get behind? Or even American leadership
Russia has been overthrown by a foreign power, the Mongols. This has had a lasting effect on the Russian psych, the fear of being conquered yet again.
No one is talking about overthrowing Russia, not even overthrowing its evil dictator, so you throw this up as a straw man to argue that the West do nothing to help the country Russia invaded. And then you throw in the OTHER straw man: that the Russians will pull the nuclear trigger. Putin might be evil but he’s rational. It’s not going to happen.
Plus - not defending Putin, just saying - all these countries and we’re haphazardly like “c’mon join us in NATO!” which sucks, Putin just sees as a massive threat on his doorstep, wouldn’t you get pissed and react? It’s all so dangerous. That was never supposed to be the deal and we’re messing with a tyrant...
But now for the important stuff! Pantsless!
Truly, pantsless is a coverup compared to certain leggings... You all know what I am talking about.
Girls just want to advertise. (Real girls)
- Yo! I have a working vagina. Right here folks! EW! Not you! I just want to feel pretty!
Boys
- Yeah. I can certainly see what you're talking about. <pant, pant> Why is my tongue so dusty?
I can't figure out how women will dress like a street walker, and then get offended if a man makes a move on her. And the way women dress at the Oscars, with their boobs & body barely covered...they are asking for trouble, then complain when they get it!!!
It's not complicated.
Their self worth increases with their attractiveness to men, but they don't actually want the attention of most men attracted to them.
This is why Muslims end the game completely and cover females head to toe.
Susan's husband here. (E-mail glitch @Substack.)
For men every encounter is like a job interview. For women every encounter is like shopping. Women can't always find what they want but they will settle if they want children badly enough. (Even if they have no economically valuable skills, they don't need to find husbands for financial reasons because the state can be made to fill the role of husband nowadays.) Some men will never find women who are willing to settle for them because women in the welfare state or who can work plus or minus raise children no longer need men whose only strong suit is "good provider".
Life's hard but that's how it is. In nature, many males never get to mate. Males compete for choosy females. In polygynic systems, strong males control several females and the weaker males are shut out entirely. (That's unless they can sneak into the harem without the alpha male noticing and have their way with a less-favoured female.) Polygamy is illegal in western countries but nothing controls the reproductive success of a highly attractive or wealthy single male who can have sex with several single women with or without their knowing about the existence of the others.
Buddy, guess what: on my last first date, she did conduct an actual job interview, including having me submit a resumé, the first one I had put to use in years now that I'm retired and widowed. Highly unusual, but I played along.
Two years on, we're still together and doing fine, with pre-verified compatibility.
Just curious, does "pre-verified compatibility" mean she provided a copy of her own resume as well?
LoL.
I saw that as a hearing officer for child support in the early 90s. Women were happy to have the State as the supporting other parent rather than the unreliable sperm donor who impregnated them.
Yes, that always annoyed me. We tax payers were (still are) subsidizing those people to have more children that they can't afford. The states should have required sterilization after they had two state supported children. But, oh no, we can't do that, can we.
You left out dance moves and dazzling culinary skills. Notably breakfast. These have seen me through.
That and the fetching beauty of North African women. Clearly.
Hey, it's a living for them!
I can taste, maybe even smell, some truth in here.
I can’t imagine pantsless will become a trend in 2024 when the average American’s BMI has reached gargantuan proportions.
There’s a reason baggy pants are back, it’s because Gen Z is profoundly obese.
Couldn't agree more with Niall Ferguson. When Fukuyama wrote "The End of History", we all seemed to say "Whew, glad that's over." History has other ideas. America was always safe because our military capability and the global belief that we would use it was feared by our enemies. Given the pusillanimous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our drive to make the military "woke", our feckless behavior relative to Iran's aggression, the fact that we let a Chinese spy balloon hover our military installations unmolested, and the lack of a Southern Border for three years, I do not believe that America is feared any longer. There is a very real possibility that 2024 could be a year like none we have experienced before. I can only hope I am wrong.
Make no mistake, our enemies are watching. And probably laughing.
I don't know about laughing, I do know they are planning our demise if not overthrow. Those aren't only potential farmworkers coming across the Southern border. Iran isn't whistleing Dixie and XiPutin isn't thinking only about the present.
As in Iran. That is why they trained Hamas for the massacre of Oct 7 Hostage taking is their game.
Obama helped weaken our International agenda. He had Zero experience. Iran, Russia China and N. Korea see all this Wokeness as weakness in the U. S. We need someone like Nikki Haley in the W. H.
But Obama had massive arrogance...he believed he knew more about everything than the experts.
And they were probably aided by all those documents Trump "unclassified", with his mind, ya know...
Methinks it was more likely the ones Hunter traded for an eight ball.
If Trump actually had disclosed secrets to foreign powers, the DoJ's grand jury had every power to indict him for that. They didn't.
They haven't indicted him for that because they don't have the proof (yet).
But if you think the man who thinks that those serving in the military are "suckers", stole money from American citizens by setting up a fake university and regularly declares his affection for murderous dictators wouldn't sell secrets to our enemies for profit, you are in heavy denial.
The onus is on you to prove that, and you just said they have no proof. The indictment is as it is and does not accuse him of disclosing secrets to enemies for love or money. The charges are failing to return U.S. government documents when asked nicely and obstructing justice by thwarting efforts by the FBI to find them. If there was evidence that he gave actively useful secrets to the bad guys, I'm sure the DoJ would have gleefully indicted him under the Espionage Act. Since they didn't do that, presumably he didn't do it. The indictment doesn't even challenge his claim that he could (while President) de-classify documents simply by thinking about them, which, to me, means that he was right: he could do that as president. The charges relate to his continued possession of them, secret or not, after he became a private citizen and do not address the classification authority at all, or any transmission to America's enemies.
What you or I think Trump would or wouldn't do based on his long list of sins and transgressions is irrelevant to the question of what he actually did or didn't do, which is the only thing the Courts have to figure out. Just as a woman's previous character or even criminal record does not bear on whether or not she was "really" raped as she says, all the things you don't like about Trump's character have no bearing on his guilt of the charges laid out in any of the indictments, or on any other crimes you wish he had been indicted for but he wasn't. Sorry, heart-breaking for you I know, but they don't.
Let the jury decide. Even Trump’s poodle of an a
A-G Bill Barr said he’s going down for this.
Why are you defending him? He's a grifter, He's a malignant narcissist, any mental health professional will tell you that; He has sexually assaulted women.. and he tried to overturn a legitimate presidential election. This is a role model for your children?? You are in deep s***. Not to mention deep denial.
"If there was evidence that he gave actively useful secrets to the bad guys, I'm sure the DoJ would have gleefully indicted him under the Espionage Act. Since they didn't do that, presumably he didn't do it."
There was no definitive proof that OJ Simpson murdered his wife. The fact that Nicole Simpson was assaulted by him nine times, said "if I'm ever murdered, OJ did it", and that he took off for the airport with a bag full of cash after the murder might not be enough evidence to convict him, but since the jury didn't, "presumably he didn't do it?" Seriously?
You put (yet) in parenthesis.
So you don’t have proof of your claims, just a conviction? Sounds more like TDS than rational discourse.
Yes, at the moment, it's just a conviction, just as I believe OJ Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman. Now be honest: If you had to bet your life on whether or not Trump showed or sold a stolen secret document to an unauthorized person or nation, which way would you bet?
...and Defense Secretary Austin accusing the military of having too many 'right-leaning radicals' prompting a study which just recently proved he was wrong. Nothing like publicly besmirching your work force - great for morale.
WW 2 was won by "right-leaning readicals. Does Austin think all the Generals and Admirals were left-leaning?
Another minority hire. Are we sensing a pattern yet?
Leaping to accuse border patrol agents for "whipping immigrants" and comparing it to whipping slaves. That's on the front page, of course. An investigation finding it never happened is buried in the back.
The Biden Administration is craven & dishonest.
I totally agree.
I agree that America is likely not feared, but no country wishes to cut off the head of the snake to save the body. I mean, no country wishes to risk there own annihilation in order to claim a military victor over an Empire State. Except maybe North Korea... The new world war looks just like what is happening; milti-front regional battles with proxy war support from larger countries, all the while the real test is whose economy remains relevant after its all said and done. Our economy may tank, and we “lose”but that would also give us an opportunity to rest out isolationism as thought up originally in WW1. The United States is the most impenetrable nation in the world. We have solid trade and military agreements with our border nations, and we have expansive ocean on with side. The likely hood of our soil being at threat is terribly low. The outlook that we loose our global present increases with each passing year.
I agree in principle, Daniel. However, as far as impenetrable, we have had over 3 million "migrants" cross what used to be our Southern border. Over 700 of these were on our terror watch list. This is only those who were caught. Secondly, do not underestimate the extremism of radical islam. Their value structure, as demonstrated on October 7th bears no resemblance to ours.
True, we are threatened by terrorism and potential self inflicted wounds by weakening our border security. Terrorism acts upon the US though likely are not be an issue in a world where US hegemony is no longer relevant. Our acts in the Middle East have only strengthened the potential for terrorism against us. The same is likely true for Israel. Whether or not a terrorist stack hits before then, well, let’s hope not. All I’m saying is there’s a benefit for us to be forced into downsizing our global influence. Which, if I’m to be honest, I see as an inevitably that can’t be avoided, given enough time.
You may be right, although, after 76 years as the leader of the free world, I'm not sure America understands the implications of relinquishing that role. Just my opinion.
That can and should change soon. Not every young American is a limpwristed leftist. The ones you focus on are.
I wish you were wrong but I don’t think you are. All of the above + what’s the unknown for this year it doesn’t look pretty but I am ever hopeful as the yard moves along common sense will prevail
Year moves along these iphones
Niall Ferguson is one of the last people I would look to for accurate foreign policy info. Have a look at this excellent piece Matt Taibbi wrote on him and his fellow war hawks, and see if you still feel the same:
https://www.racket.news/p/the-war-party-tantrum?publication_id=1042&post_id=140245229&isFreemail=false&r=mzsp6
I have enormous respect for Matt (I subscribe). There are indeed people in authority that have, as they say, never met a war they didn’t like. That said, this neo-isolationism is very reminiscent of the period leading up to WWII, with dilettantes like Tucker Carlson playing the role of Father Coughlin, who demagogued against American involvement as Hitler rolled through Europe. Our lack of engagement ultimately led to Pearl Harbor and American involvement in a two-front war. As that period demonstrated, the idea that we can just pull up the drawbridges and let others take care of themselves is, IMHO, specious. For instance, if the US walks away from Ukraine (American casualties 0) and Russia takes over Ukraine, they will be up against Sweden, a NATO ally. Whether we like it or not, an attack on NATO requires, by our agreement, American involvement (troops on the ground) in response. If we pull out of the Middle East, we will surely facilitate the second Holocaust. If we pull out of East Asia, China takes over Taiwan (and the overwhelming source of our pharmaceuticals and computer chips). History demonstrates that foreign policy decisions come with a cost. There is no black/white, only grey. As someone who grew up in the military and who also served, no one hates war more than me. The only way to stay out of war is to convincingly demonstrate to your enemies that they cannot win.
It seems your WW2 history is a bit off. FDR desperately wanted to involve the US in WW2 to fight Germany, but 80% of the citizenry were against it. He knew the only way they'd support US entry into the war was if we were attacked directly. Thus, he provoked Japan by freezing their assets, embargoing all oil shipments to Japan, and rebuffing Tokyo's repeated requests for negotiations. https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/#purging-our-leading-historians-and-journalists
Also, https://www.unz.com/book/harry_elmer_barnes__perpetual-war-for-perpetual-peace/
Russia will not take over Ukraine. That's not what Putin wants. Don't believe me, fine. But mark my words.
Israel can prevent a "second holocaust" simply by negotiating with the Palestinians for their right of return and ending the occupation.
The only way to stay out of war is to end hegemony/imperialism so as not to make enemies (including "terrorists") in the first place.
"Israel can prevent a "second holocaust" simply by negotiating with the Palestinians for the right to return and ending the occupation?" You mean like the 4 times that they offered the Palestinians everything they said they wanted and they walked away from the table and launched terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians? Or perhaps when, in 2005, the Israeli government uprooted all the Israelis from Gaza and turned it over to the PLO, at which point Hamas threw the Palestinian leadership off of rooftops and assumed control of Gaza. As far as their "Occupation", the Jews have had a continuous presence in Israel for over 3,000 years. Perhaps you can provide a couple of details that I've always been curious about. The term "Palestine" was created by the Romans in 73 CE after they had destroyed the Second Temple and driven the Jews out of land that they had occupied for almost 2,000 years. Following that, control of Jerusalem went back and forth between Muslims and Christians until the end of World War I, when the League of Nations created the current State of Israel as the Homeland of the Jews, (later ratified by the UN). Given that easily verifiable history, the term "occupation" is a fantasy.. You might consider reading some history books other than the propaganda that currently passes for history.
"the 4 times that they offered the Palestinians everything they said they wanted" -- Really? So, Israel offered them right of return and their land back? In reality, NONE of the Zionists' "deals" have been even remotely reasonable.
"Hamas threw the Palestinian leadership off of rooftops." -- Good grief, where do you get such propaganda? The only mentions of this I can find are from the (credibility-questionable) NYT, which states, "On its first day in full control in Gaza, Hamas on Friday both mocked and reached out to its defeated Fatah rivals, offering them amnesty but also...throwing a Fatah gunman off a rooftop." So, even if that's true, it's one person who obviously posed a threat. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/world/africa/15iht-mideast.4.6161020.html
The second mention is an Agence France-Presse article titled, "Video does not show Hamas throwing people off a roof," which reveals the video was actually of ISIS in Iraq. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.347B339
Regarding the "easily verifiable history," there continues to be robust debate amongst historians over who inhabited the land first, who drove out whom and when. Here are just a few of the numerous books and articles written by prominent historians that have informed my beliefs on the matter:
https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Land-Israel-Holy-Homeland/dp/1781680833/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2AD5OAZT77PY6&keywords=the+invention+of+the+holy+land+of+israel&qid=1697752212&sprefix=the+invention+of+the+holy+land+of+israel%2Caps%2C189&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Years-War-Palestine-Colonialism/dp/1250787653/ref=sr_1_1?crid=9BAUTYQ8849X&keywords=100+years+war+on+palestine+by+rashid+khalidi&qid=1701902748&sprefix=100+years%2Caps%2C419&sr=8-1
https://mosaicrooms.org/product/atlas-of-palestine-1917%E2%80%931966/
https://www.amazon.com/Obstacle-Peace-Role-Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict/dp/0996105816/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1OTUJJVYOGAF5&keywords=obstacle+to+peace+jeremy+hammond&qid=1704655424&sprefix=obstacle+to+pea%2Caps%2C333&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Obstacle-Peace-Role-Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict/dp/0996105816/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1OTUJJVYOGAF5&qid=1704655424&sprefix=obstacle%20to%20pea,aps,333
https://www.amazon.com/dp/149591092X/
https://www.amazon.com/Image-Reality-Israel-Palestine-Conflict-Revised/dp/1859844421/ref=sr_1_1?crid=390WFBKVB9BRO&keywords=norman+finkelstein&qid=1704654142&sprefix=norm%2Caps%2C550&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-of-Palestine-audiobook/dp/B077KDH396/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2N6I5RO3ASRV8&keywords=the+ethnic+cleansing+of+palestine+by+ilan+pappe&qid=1697752063&sprefix=the+ethnic+cleansing+of+pa%2Caps%2C595&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Transfer-Agreement-Untold-Between-Palestine/dp/0025111302/ref=sr_1_2?crid=22A05Y7GTPSHY&keywords=the+transfer+agreement+by+edwin+black&qid=1697750630&sprefix=the+transfer+agre%2Caps%2C200&sr=8-2
https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/why%20did%20the%20palestinians%20leave.pdf
https://www.middleeasteye.net/features/richard-falk-history-side-palestinians
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/11/02/what-was-the-balfour-declaration-of-1917-and-why-is-it-significant
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/11/the-battle-for-palestine/
https://ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html#:~:text=The%20war%20begins,all%2Dout%20war...
A robust debate, huh. It seems apparent that you have never visited Israel, where the project of unearthing and restoring King David’s home in Jerusalem, which has been carbon dated to the 11th-10th century BCE. Mohammed was born and Islam was founded in the 7th century CE, 1600 years later. Believe what you choose.
So let's see what happens in '24. Let's see if we're feared or not. If North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah, China, Russia directly challenges us militarily - I will concede your point. Do you really think that's going to happen? If we're so weak, how come the bad guys haven't done anything like that yet?
If your enemy is defeating himself, don’t interrupt - as the maxim goes.
About 10,000 illegals per day. Mostly 3rd worlders but some terrorists too.
Why would they interrupt the Biden admin invasion?
But can our enemies be so assured we’re weakened internally? You might be. I’m not. They have no guarantee we’re on the verge of collapse or self defeat.
There are no guarantees of that sort of thing. But our enemies can see that we’re degrading societally and militarily. China, specifically, doesn’t want to invade and occupy the US Red Dawn style, they want to dominate Asia and subjugate us economically.
How would they do that? FYI, we are in the process of building all the manufacturing infrastructure back into North America, with an assist for resources from a couple South America countries. Japan has a navy now. Australia has one. And we have the ability with the push of a few buttons to sink any ship we want to. China has shown no ability to manufacture high end chips...........most come from Taiwan. You don't think the Taiwanese have installed their own chips inside an army of drones? On top of that, China's population is plummeting, meaning even fewer domestic consumers and more dependence on the American market. Pull the American market and their economy collapses. Include the Europeans and other USA allies and it is over for the Chinese.
I think China has some very large problems economically on their own. But we have no real assurance they are that weakened either. Perception can be dangerous. But I take your point.
I've been reading the "China is about to implode" analyses for years. Their demographic problem is indeed well known and apparent, the economic stuff much less so. Having said that, Japan is way ahead of them on the demographics road and they are still functioning like a normal nation. In other words, those signs and problems are mostly deep and less clear, less obvious.
But our government's intentional abdication of a basic duty of national sovereignty (border security) is neon bright, no crystal balls needed. Our failing inner cities, also clear. Our population segment that openly hates Western Civilization, even the USA itself, is not only visible but in positions of power. Our military saying climate change and white supremacy are our biggest threats, along with mentally ill (gender dysphoria) officers - right out there for everyone to see.
It's best to make small incurrsions first and see what the response is. If the response is weak, then go forward, if it's strong, back up and wait. As long as the US has nuclear power, it's enemies will hesitate.
Exactly right. As Stalin said: push in your bayonet. If you hit steel, pull back. Otherwise keep pushing. Currently we have the Eisenhower Carrier group, with its almost incomprehensible destructive power in the area. Meanwhile Iran’s proxies are firing rockets and killing American servicemen in Iraq, attacking cargo ships and disrupting traffic to the point that major shipping companies have stopped using the Red Sea, providing Lebanon with increasingly accurate and longer range missiles capable of bringing down skyscrapers in Tel Aviv. What do we do? We just released another $3 billion to Iran. Does that sound like they fear us?
I don’t see an incursion by any of the countries I mentioned unless it was a mistake. If Putin was truly fearless for example, he would have entered the Baltics already..But he hasn’t and he won’t.
Agree Lee. Too much uninformed woofing going on here, especially about using nukes (by anyone). Having said that, it’s getting awfully close to Israel bombing Hizbollah in southern Lebanon just to push them away from the border and to send a signal to Iran. But even in its rage Israel too is a rational actor: Hizbollah has several HUNDRED thousand rockets and missiles; they make Hamas look like a scout troop. No one is doing anything irrational except Putin, and look at how that’s working out for him.
Well said. The scout troop analogy is a good one.
Niall Ferguson is right. An aura of inevitability tends to creep in on Monday morning, and it should be a habit to remember those wins that were, in fact, close. World War II wasn't a given, and much closer than many realize. The release of Cold War spy files in the early '90s revealed that, shocker, there really were communist agents and traitors in the country working for its failure. And now we're supposed to win Cold War II when we won't even keep Thanksgiving parades and Christmas tree lightings orderly, let alone access roads to major airports?
I can’t think of a time in recent history when as a country, we’ve appeared more weak and foolish.
As I told my husband not too long ago, " The American people have been wrong before, but I don't recall a time when they were silly. Now we aren't just "unserious," we're silly.
Truly. The USA: Unserious State of America.
Silly to the point of ridiculous.
We may appear weak. But are we really? What yardstick are you using? Hezbollah hasn't attacked Israel from the north since the Gaza war began. Could it be because two US carrier groups are nearby reinforcing Israel? Putin has stayed fighting within Ukraine. Has he conducted military incursions in NATO territory? No. And why is that?
Our military is serious, but under the woke agenda promoted by the current administration, it is rapidly becoming unserious. Too many people are leaving in disgust at promotion of officers who don't meet the requirements of the job because of their preferences, color, or gender. Too many promotions are based on whether or not you agree with the woke party line. I live in a community with 2 Navy bases. No one wants to serve with people who can't or won't be responsible for their job.
Not to mention we are running out of physically fit young people. That’s no joke.
Cynthia, you’ve got the places mixed up. Those DEI promotions were at Harvard.
Hate to say it, but they're in the military too.
It's both. Add to that all the service members the military has lost due to their covid vax mandate and all the global conflicts it has unnecessarily involved itself in, plus its recruiting challenges for the same reasons... our military is anything but serious; it's a joke.
I think one has left.
You're right. And there are enough land based units in the area to continue deterrence. My point is that the pessimism here is overdrawn - saying we're weak when we have yet to be challenged head on. And the reasons are clear why we haven't.
I concede that I’m pessimistic, Lee, and I hope you’re right. But I submit that America’s image on the world stage over the last few years has emboldened foreign powers, increasing the likelihood that we will be challenged.
The fear is there, but I just don't see it materializing on the ground. Thanks for the response.
Our military maybe strong but our president is weak. and he needs to make the moves and decisions to keep reminding those bad guys how strong we are and we will use it to defeat the bad guys. joe can't even defeat his political opponents from the Dem party without the Dem party declaring him the only candidate. As Gates pointed out and we have seen the last three years, joe has never been on the right side of any foreign policy. "I told him to fire the guy or no billions of dollars. Well S.O.B. they fired him." No Quid Pro Quo there.
Well dan, I can only say then if the US military wipes out the Houthis in Yemen - I hope he isn't branded a warmonger by the Trumpist bullpit here. Because he will..
Weakness is as weakness does. We do indeed have extraordinarily deadly assets in the region. Other than blowing up a couple of empty warehouses and one leadership node, we have not engaged seriously. Having these assets on station and not using them is, IMO, worse than not having them there.
Not to be argumentative, but Hizbollah has reoccupied the buffer zone created by the, as always, studiously incompetent, UN "peace-keeping" force and is now on Israel's border. Their rocket attacks have driven residents 3 miles on the Israeli side of the border to refugee camps. There is an almost daily exchange of rocket and tank fire between Israel and Lebanon since October 7th. This is a tinderbox.
I agree it’s a tinderbox. Hezbollah has just recently responded to Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader in Beirut by firing a flurry of rockets. Will they go further is the question.
Oct 7 wouldn’t have happened at all if we weren’t weak. Your claim is that we aren’t weak and your evidence is that there hasn’t been a second Oct 7. Why was there any Oct 7 at all?
Saying that Oct 7 occurred because we are weak is like saying that the reason Egypt invaded Israel in 1973 was because America under Nixon was weak. But we weren't and they invaded anyway. Oct 7 occurred because 1. Hamas perceived Israel to be sleeping and (in my opinion..) 2. Because Hamas needed to derail a potential deal between Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US.
They invaded for those reasons and the weakness of the United States that was put on display by the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Since Afghanistan Russia has invaded Ukraine and Palestine has invaded Israel.
It is obviously due to our current weakness and you’re simply trying to distract from what is obvious because it doesn’t comport with the narrative necessary to eliminate your cognitive dissonance.
You need to arrive at “everything is fine, Biden is in control” and you’ll bend the facts as needed to arrive there.
I never said Biden is in control. It appears that the planet itself is slowly going out of control - and has been ever since geopolitically we are now a multipower world. I think the unravelling started after Sept 11 and has accelerated ever since.
The Afghanistan debacle closed the door on America's supremacy. That's why the "bad guys" (Russia, Iran's minions and China) are not afraid to start wars. Pax American no longer exists thanks to the incompetence of the present administration and cabinet.
There were communist Cold War spies in the US working for its demise since the end of World War II. What's new? We're still around.
Six questions you left in this reply thread.
Every one of them weak, denialist cop-outs a la Comprof, where any answer to your prompt will be fruitless.
The president and vice president are idiots, we have 34 trillion in debt, we can't define the word "woman" and the Democratic Party is entirely in a cold war with the people of the USA.
Anybody who's not infected with the mind virus can see we're a disgrace and a farce of our former country.
The cold war I was referring to was the one Niall was. The 34 trill you refer to is owned by the 'uniparty' - of which you and I have both voted for since we were of age. Relax Anthony - the problem, sir - is us.
Please, don’t invoke C-o-m-p-r-o-f, for he might appear.
The state of our economy is a part of our national security. If we aren't prosperous, we can't pay to defend ourselves.
Our economy overall is doing well right now, while China is in dire straits. If we want to pay to defend ourselves we need to end the Trump and Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Since inception of trickledown policy we have had a growing debt.
You've clearly not done the math here. You could seize the entire fortunes of our "millionaires and billionaires" and not close the deficit for a single year.
Last year was the worst year in American banking ever. Three out of four of the biggest bank failures in USA history were last year. If you didn't hear about that, your information sources are junk and that's why you think the economy is "overall doing well."
Nearly everything in our economy is now dependent on government spending, and the government spending is entrenched in unsustainable debt that's just gotten drastically more expensive to refinance. Cut the deficit spending, and the economy spirals out of control.
Meanwhile the dollar is dropping internationally as BRICS coordinates to remove American hegemony from the economic system. Further dollar devaluation leads to further debt and sustainability problems - and we're currently flooding the nation with illegals going on welfare.
As with almost everything else, the Biden administration is destroying the nation as fast as it can, while focusing most of their efforts on campaigning and lies.
Do a little research on the impact of the Trump tax reduction. A friggin disaster for everyone but the top 1-5%. Corporate tax reduced by 11% never triggered higher incomes they projected. Eliminating the tax cuts won’t fix our debt/deficit issues in a year, but over a decade would make a huge difference. Trickle down economics doesn’t work.
That's courageous of you, Ann - saying we should rescind the Trumpian tax cuts - around here.
I did edit it just now seeing it again. It’s not all we’d have to do, but it would be a tremendous start.
The economy is doing well, but the amount of money we have to pay to service the debt is increasing. That is the sinkhole that we need to deal with and until we cut spending (both sides of the aisle are responsible), our economy will have underlying problems.
How is the economy doing well?
What are you referring to?
Are you actually a communist or are you playing that game where you pretend when conservatives call people “communist” they’re just being hysterical and referring to normal left wing people?
There’s a difference between being left wing and being a communist. A communist is a specific thing. Are you or are you not a communist?
Why, Douglas! Who knew you could so perceptive in your suspicions! I'm impressed. I could be a (ab)normal 'left wing person'. Or maybe I'm just AI. Maybe what you asked was just a joke - but around here, you never know..
I was responding to Blair's worry about all the communists in our midst, if you were to read above. I just reminded him we've had them for the last 75 years at least, and that our country is still here. And as per your question if I really am a true blue communist - try to figure it out yourself. And I'll try to figure out what you adhere to. We can trade insults into the future. It could be fun.
You didn’t answer the question. You said, “we’re still here.” Implying you yourself are a communist.
I do not think you are a communist. I think you like to think that conservatives who are concerned about communists are just irrational and paranoid low information individuals freaking out about welfare or something, as if welfare or left wing policies were necessarily communist.
I think you’re accusing your debate opponent of being irrational in an indirect and immature manner.
Douglas, try to relax. It's Saturday. Your interpretation of what I said is creative - but when I said we're still here I meant the USA. Why would you insinuate that i think conservatives are 'low information' individuals - they all seem rather intelligent around here. It's why I'm still around.
Then that’s all you had to say! Why waste so many comments perpetuating a misunderstanding. Just say, “Douglas, dear handsome Douglas, you misunderstood what I said. I was referring to the United States. Looks like you’re itching for a fight but let’s just get drinks and be friends, you’re so handsome.”
See, not that hard!
White House wasn't notified of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's hospitalization for several days – CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-not-notified-defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-hospitalization-several-days/
Deputy [who was on vacation in Puerto Rico] learned of Defense Secretary's hospitalization two days after taking over his duties – NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/deputy-learned-defense-secretarys-hospitalization-two-days-taking-duti-rcna132729
Frank Luntz refers to First Lady Jill Biden as "one of our best in modern times." He left out that Dr. Biden is also a world-class physician. See say pwodway!
This remark puzzled me. What are her accomplishments? The only thing I can think of is Jill has kept Joe from falling over.
My thoughts exactly - what has she done? Please. Honestly, I do not believe she has to do anything, but let´s just not pretend that she has. I am so sick of the left making us play pretend games.
She’s gotten a lot of people to unironically call her DOCTOR Jill Biden. Under most circumstances, someone with her limited credentials insisting on that honorific would rightly be mocked as pretentious.
If you play pretend games, it's because you choose to do so. No one make you.
I liked your unedited version of saying she kept Joe "erect" - very funny double entendre.
She hasn’t even done that.
Best of modern times? The woman who shunned -- and is still shunning -- her granddaughter? The woman who refused to put up Christmas stockings this year because she didn't want to put up one for Navy? I wouldn't walk across the street to say hello to her.
The matriarch of Biden Family Inc.
correction: Biden Crime Family, Inc.
I guess technically she’s not the grandmother but I don’t know anyone who shuns their step grand children
I don't know anyone who would shun a child, period.
You gotta admit, though, Doctor Jill's fashion sense is out of this world.
Only the best in Motel 6 shower curtain themed dresses
Aren't all her grandchildren step-grandchildren?
Does Ashley have children ?
No - Hunter has 5 kids (counting Navy) and Beau had 2.
I would. But then, I am polite that way, and my bar has been set pretty high. I once took a man out to dinner who ran the largest murder organization in the region. And finished up saving the lives of a few ungrateful young jerks. But I do understand where you're coming from.
I found it vaguely disturbing that he is hallucinatory enough to think Joe Biden decides anything but what flavor of ice cream he wants. We dont have a President, and I thought all thinking people realized it.
What are you basing your comments on? the robust job market, the low inflation; the "face" that the US recovered after Trump trashed all of America?
I am basing my comments on the fact that our President gets lost on stages, mumbles complete gibberish in front of other world leaders, and reportedly smells really bad, which makes me think he craps in his pants, like most old men with Alzheimers do. He just does it while representing the United States.
I find it comical that you would be disconnected from reality--as I see it--to claim Trump "trashed" anything. It was obvious in the Obama years that Corporate America WANTED to start investing and growing again, but they didn't trust Obama. He was, is and will remain a Communist in all but name. Once Obama got the boot and Trump got in, everything came roaring back.
Biden deserves credit for NOTHING. I am not aware of one thing he has done that helped--or was intended to help over the long term--any Americans he was not trying to pander to. Our border is wide open to economic tourists and terrorists alike. Our enemies don't fear us, and our friends don't trust us.
This is what happens when you crap your pants at meetings with world leaders.
Oh, depends...
Let's not besmerch Depends.
Besmirching is the raison d'etre of Depends.
OMG, you are delusional. It was his own former administration that reported that TRUMP smells like poop and body odor. Do you think its normal presidential behavior to throw lunch at the wall? to ingage in insurrection? to deride anyone who disagrees with you? to sexually assault women? oh sure, they lied, right?
Let's agree to agree that ONE of us is delusional.
That would be you. You can disagree with that part. Just kidding!!!. You would not be you if you were capable of self reflection, and the honest evaluation of criticism, so your disagreement is roughly as likely as that I will continue to be weighed down by gravity, versus floating up freely, as I would like to do, in some measure to avoid the reality that our nation is filled with people like you.
I've honestly never understood hysterical left wing evangelists, other than to repeatedly draw the obvious conclusion that whatever virtues you may possess at work and in your personal relationships, you are contextually psychotic, and psychotic is just not a great place to begin a rational conversation. And it won't happen here.
What is a 'left' wing Evangelical??????
I think you got mixed up on left and right!
Hmmm…seems you’re the more hysterical.
Myrna. Honey. You really need professional help. I realize a good therapist is hard to find. But maybe just someone who can prescribe some CALM DOWN pills.
Please dont condescend to me. I am old enough to perceive a threat when I see one. You need to turn on your bullshit detector.
What are you smoking?
He made a really good speech on Israel after 7 October
Brutal smackdown!
Not sure what planet you're living on, but here on Earth the US has a weak job market, high inflation, and an extremely embarrassed "face" that much of the rest of the world views as quite ugly and ridicules.
I guess you still listen to Faux News...
I don't follow any legacy news. But it is demonstrably clear that you do.
Yes, but the "presidents" we do have running things are.... Besides, what McWhorter or someone recently published a book about, Congress is supposed to be running things.
Congress creates laws and budgets. Presidents enforce the laws--to fail to do so is patent dereliction of duty--and oversee the agencies to whom the money is given.
We don't know who is making the decisions. Some people think Obama, but Obama himself was obviously a puppet. He's not actually that smart. He's a reasonably gifted parrot and grifter, but I don't personally think he wrote the books which created the impression he had intellectual gifts.
No, the likeliest conclusion is that the banks and large corporations who run everything else--and who are pushing Woke and DEI and Open Borders and War with Russia--have their agents in the White House, who simply tell Joe Biden what he thinks, writes it on note cards or a teleprompter, and tells him to do his best not to go off script, for which the reward is more ice cream.
At least with Obama, we knew that Valerie Jarrett was running things. Who know who's in control of the Biden administration.
Didn't Whoopi Goldberg want to nominate Dr. Biden for Surgeon General?
Doesn't the S-G have to be a physician? (Just asking. I'm a foreigner.)
Yes. That’s the joke. She’s not a real doctor.
Neither is the current one. He/she doesn't know what they are.
You’re confusing the S-G with the assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine
Your right. Can’t remember the last time I saw the S G. It’s always Levine.
Are you saying that people with PhDs or DPhils are not "real" doctors and should not be called Dr.? Just trying to clarify.
Ah. OK. Thanks. Foreigner you know.
Her doctoral degree is in Education, not medicine.
What has that to do with it? My doctoral degree is in English literature but I'm still called Dr. If you want to change that, change the English language and the university tradition. The title Doctor for scholars goes back to medieval Europe. The PhD or DPhil means Doctor of Philosophy.
a world-class physician??? maybe you are poking gentle fun?? she got a doctorate of education in educational leadership from the University of Delaware in 2007.
Gentle fun, my a**. Everyone knows her doctorate is a joke, and everyone knows that referring to her as "Dr." is an incredible embarrassment to everyone but Dr. and Mr. Biden.
And Dr. Seuss!!
Dr. Dre would like a word as well.
Thank you for this - he's delusional, lol
Jill is a minder for a mentally debilitated octogenarian…that’s the extent of it. Watching her direct which direction he should shamble in is sad.
Dr. Biden also wins the booby prize for being the worst dressed First Lady ever!
And by "dressed" you mean "upholstered."
Doesn't Melania exposing her boobies while being chained to a suitcase full of cash win?
You mean best looking.
"And she has to decide what her legacy will be as well: an active, participatory, engaged first lady, one of our best in modern times, or the person who said to her husband, ..."
Sounds more like he's saying her legacy will be decided by whether she instructs her husband to step out of the race.
Physician? She has an EdD
Jill Biden is not a physician. This "Dr. Jill" thing keeps coming up. Her doctorate is in education.
Check that irony deficiency, Susan.
Oops. Right. Foreigner's mistake.
Yes, Susan, we know.
This was a FUN episode. I have to disagree with Tyler on inflation. While it's down year over year, prices are still very high. I always base it on the index ratio for the TIPS (treasury inflation protected securities) I bought on 4/15/2021 where the baseline index ratio was 1.00. On 12/31/2023, the index ratio was 1.17321. That means since April 2021 CPI has increased 17.321%. That's A LOT! Thankfully for 2023 the increase was only 3.685% because I have to pay taxes on that phantom income.
You are correct, they can say whatever they want to make it a lie but reality of living says everything costs more and you get less.
I am surprised that doubling the number of chicken coupons we give out and importing 10 million people who eat food and going to war with the country that makes fertilizer affected the price of chicken.
Look, let’s try to focus on the Oath Keepers, alright?
I’m always vigilant when the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys put in appearance at my local Panera.
The reason they haven’t charged Trump with insurrection in DC, even though they could charge him with being a ham sandwich and get a conviction, is because they would have to connect him to the Oath Keepers who were charged with sedition.
But they can’t do that because then Trump’s attorneys would get discovery and the Oath Keepers are mostly Feds so we can’t have that.
I agree. They are absolutely capable of that kind of perfidy. Just ask Jeffrey Epstein...or not
Ouu, you out Kevin'd Kevin.
Isn't that what we all aspire to here? Or is that just me?
Always remember; "You can't fight city hall with a ham sandwhich."
'
Maybe in Dearborn, MI.
Or on the outskirts of Hard Times, Mississippi.
Those are oatmeal cookies, not oath keepers, doofus, and the PB stands for Panera Bread.
He’s wrong. Inflation running 20% back to back years. BLS is BS.
Prices will never come down over-all, although some volatile things like gasoline and meat and houses can fluctuate more down than up. If inflation goes to zero, it just means prices aren't increasing. Only with deflation do prices come down, but deflation causes wars. Stick with low inflation and hope your income keeps up.
The elderly on fixed incomes will be going back into the workforce!!
I am 72 and still working. I am glad that I am able to. Inflation is not a USA problem, it is a world wide problem. People like to find someone to blame . It is no one person's fault. Covid did not help. Price gougers had a hey day and are still. We are all paying for it.
It's the government's fault...printing money is bad. Injecting 6T into the economy during Covid is the reason for the problems we are having now.
yes - it was gross mismanagement by the Biden Administration. They had the national monkey working overtime printing money...and he's still at it..
I think the person in charge at the time was DJT. As I recall, he said Covid would "disappear, poof!" over a million dead because of him. Maybe because of all the deals he negotiated with the Chinese, he was reluctant to take a more aggressive posture to stop travel sooner between China and the US. In any case, he was the president during most of Covid, when the most damage was done. Can't blame Biden for mismanagement; he inherited the mess that Trump made.
You are wrong about price gougers. If Covid (or anything else) causes a shortage of supply, allowing prices to rise moderates demand (preventing hoarding) and simultaneously incents the sellers to find alternative sources of supply to meet demand, albeit at a higher equilibrium price. If you imposed price controls to keep prices low, the buyers would buy up all the stock to hoard it for when prices do eventually go up due to the shortage they aggravated by their hoarding. At a controlled low price, the seller has no incentive to find new stock and just lets people experience shortages.
Do you want expensive toilet paper or do you want no toilet paper? Sure you want plentiful cheap toilet paper but in a pandemic you can't have that always. But sure, old socialists blame price gougers for everything.
Exactly! it is au courant to blame the Biden administration. But some of these things are beyond control.
I blame Biden AND Trump, they both allowed the rampant spending.
The cause of inflation was the rapid increase in the money supply caused by left wing policies.
Weird how you mention all the causes except the one economists tell us was the cause.
Seems like you’re trying to remove culpability from your preferred ideological position rather than discussing the issue in good faith.
Trump started the inflation, Biden and the democrats in congress threw it into overdrive. The poverty rate under their rule has increased 4% to the highest it’s been in decades and yet they blame “corporate greed” and “market fundamentalism”
If that’s so why did the poverty rate wait to rise only when massive economic redistribution policies were enacted? That’s not the market, that’s not corporations, that’s the government.
Lastly, corporate profits increased because prices increased. Prices increased because of the massive increase in demand relative to supply. Profits are not the cause of inflation, merely a symptom, and if corporate profits are a problem to you then you shouldn’t advocate in favor of left wing economic policies.
Corporate profits are a problem on both sides of the aisle. Do you think the millionaire and billionaires in Congress are going to vote against their own interests? Poverty increases for many reasons -IMO, because of the prevalence of single parent families; because of the lack of emphasis of importance of education, reading and critical thinking..what "massive economic redistribution programs" are you talking about? I dont see any poor people suddenly becoming middle class.
“what "massive economic redistribution programs" are you talking about? I dont see any poor people suddenly becoming middle class.”
That’s because economic redistribution programs do not remedy poverty, they perpetuate it. During covid trillions in spending bills were passed, such as the “inflation reduction act,” with the express goal of redistributing wealth. The opposite has happened, as anticipated by critics of the bills. These last few years have seen more money spent on social programs than any administration previously (Trump was horrendous on this as well don’t get me wrong, he spent like a drunk sailor) yet poverty has increased. This is because poverty cannot be cured by centralized planners, it is cured by expanding the economic pie through market based solutions, absorbing as many people into the economy and then promoting non profits and religious institutions that build community bonds and pick up the slack where pure market actors have not.
I agree with you about single parents and disregard for education. I would add drug addiction, mental health and the decline of religion as well.
I’m a strong believer in free markets, I do not think it’s ever been seriously tried but I think the evidence is overwhelming that the cure to poverty (the default position of humanity) is trade.
Hey Chris, leave me alone. you have no idea. The abundance and liberty was so outstanding, without a HS diploma I'm living very well, at age 86 this month. I just really hate to see it all going to hell, for the rest of ya, sincerely. We ain't going back to work, we're just going to get the hell out of here, just in time. Thanks for the memories.
Do it, there's a lot of places you can live well on relatively little money.
I think he means "get the hell outta here" as in leaving the Earth. I feel so blessed to have grown up in the 80s, I saw so many places "unspoiled" even at the ripe old age of 60...Cancun, the ski resorts of CO. Cancun was a ghost town when we first visited, it was spectacular. Now it's spoiled.
In other words Biden can never recover from this. The best he can hope for is to not cause more inflation, but he does not get any credit for stopping inflation because it has not stopped. Prices are still unforgivably high compared to when he entered office.
Correct, until the prices come back down inflation is not defeated. One does not get credit for climbing out of the hole one dug.
https://rudy.substack.com/p/jumpin-jack-flash-its-a-gaslight?utm_campaign=email-post&r=pq0qo&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Rudy Havenstein captures inflation discussion almost daily, your lyin’ eyes have to agree. Good substack.
Yikes. Bummer. The cream is not rising to the top anymore. We are putting ourselves at risk as a country by allowing schools to operate graduating students far below grade level and far below international ranking. We are putting ourselves at risk by forcing our military to be injected with experimental vaccines which do not prevent transmission of a disease for which young people are at very low risk. We are putting ourselves at risk by allowing our environment and food supply to be saturated with chemicals banned in other countries. And why—after a “war on terror”which involved giving up significant individual rights—is our border suddenly open to millions, no questions asked? Biden is so arrogant, he doesn’t even try to justify it. In addition, why were thousands of competent firefighters and nurses and pilots fired for not getting vaccinated while non-citizens were allowed to stream unvaccinated into the country? Stop pretending this makes any sense. We have to stop selling off our future piece by piece. We need the best, brightest, and most ethical back. At this point we can’t afford anything less.
Amen, Sister!
We need to end all childhood vaccines. They have been poisoning humans from day one for far too long. American's, both Childhood and adult health is in the crapper. We watched in real time how an injection can cause problems on mass scale. V injured people are coming out of the woodwork every where and not just from cv19 but all vaccines. The more we are allowed to talk about it the more people will come forward. We have all been complacent and programmed, but if you actually do the reading and the research into the history of vaccines and disease (polio) the industry is built on a foundation of lies. Read Dissolving Illusions for a deep look into the history and how we have been lied to. Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects. Until we as a society can tackle this fundamental wrong and evil that is being done to us, we can't really be free.
Note: I am not entertaining naysayers or vax zealots or bots. This is my opinion based on much reading and not mainstream information which is all bought and paid for my pharma. If you can't grasp the concept that the entire industry is built on a foundation of lies, you don't have the heart and soul to grasp how bad the situation is for humans.
This isn't your personal Facebook page. Ending all childhood vaccines would lead to a disease resurgence the likes of which we haven’t seen since the early 20th century. Just because the covid Vax was a debacle of historic proportion doesn't mean that all vaccines are bad.
Excellent, thanks. This bit, "I am not entertaining naysayers or vax zealots or bots. . . . If you can't grasp the concept that the entire industry is built on a foundation of lies, you don't have the heart and soul to grasp how bad the situation is for humans," seems shocking in a comments thread.
Everyone my age, somewhat younger and somewhat older, sports a tell-tale smallpox star on upper arm or thigh. Children compared them all the time. ("Where's yours?")
The polio vaccine? Remember waiting in line quietly at PS 154 to get that sugar cube.
All you are illustrating here is your deep programming.
My words may shock, but it's time for everyone to be shocked about what we have been doing to our children and ourselves all based on a foundation of lies.
60 years from now they will teach people about Covid and how the V saved lives and omitted from that history lesson will be all the bad and evil that happened and how most of it was lies. But we know that, because we lived it. But will people in 60 years know that? No. Not unless some non-programmed people dig deeply to find the truth.
Take that entire playbook and place it on Polio and the like. All lies.
Read Dissolving Illusions - The industrial revolution with all it's chemicals pumping into the air, water and food was poisoning people. People were becoming sick even paralyzed from chemical poisoning in the water, air and food. It's all well documented. It wasn't done intentionally, but it was happening. Progress must move forward, so all the industrial poisoning was labeled a disease "Polio". A polio diagnosis was given to so many for so many different things (think gun shot victim testing positive for covid) - then they created a vaccine for polio and at the same time started to relabel conditions that would previously be labeled polio something else and magically polio disappeared. It was all lies and illusions and people bought it.
Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects.
"Babies are born perfect."
Yeah, the lucky ones.
Oh, brother.
Nope, it's the comments section on a Substack that I am a paying subscriber and one of the reasons is so that I can have a voice.
You said: "Ending all childhood vaccines would lead to a disease resurgence the likes of which we haven’t seen since the early 20th century".
That sounds like a state media talking point. We've all been saying it. We all have been repeating lines like that our entire lives. But do we know if they are actually true?
I am just asking people to rethink everything we know. We watched how they lied about COVID and the vaccine. We watched it in real-time. But I am supposed to believe that they didn't lie about polio or the polio vaccine. Why? Because some low IQ news reporter told me this as fact. Nope. There are much more intelligent people talking about these topics in a more truthful and honest way. There are so many books that tell the history of vaccines and how it's all been built on a foundation of lies.
The simple fact that the vaccine manufacturers are not liable for harms.
In what other industry would this be okay?
But we suspend all logical thought when presented with that information.
The simple fact that all of our three letter agencies, medical journals, media, and experts take funding from the pharmaceutical companies.
How do people not see the conflict of interest there?
Again, we suspend all logical thought when presented with that information.
It baffles me that people can't see through the OBVIOUS BS.
But it seems to be part of the human psyche.
When we watch a movie that has a far-fetched plot we suspend all logical thought so that we can be entertained. Right?
This is clearly what is happening in real life. People suspend all logical thinking to go along with the herd so that they won't be called a name. A name that was created by the monster that is harming us. This is deep programming. We don't have to continue on this way.
Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects. And until we stop serving up our children to be guinea pigs for pharma we are not free. PERIOD!
Lori, I have also done years of in depth research into this subject after having something happen to one of my children. I agree with you 100%. People have no idea the depth to which we have all been brainwashed, lied too, and our children injured so billions of dollars could be made. And our government is complicit because the pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued for injuring a child. There are 72 vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule today, some given 3 and 4 at a time. I would encourage anyone that before you give the knee jerk reaction of all deadly diseases recurring, really do the research as to when these diseases ended and why, when the vaccines were introduced, what is in them and what the ingredients do, the fact that we have traded short term acute illnesses that strengthen immune systems for long term chronic illnesses that are also deadly and debilitating, and what these ingredients do to the immune system as well as the brain. There are many books and papers, written by doctors and scientists, so much information. Candace Owens did a whole series called a Shot In The Dark that was very informative. The Children’s Health Defense has so much information. Understand that there has never been a study about the safety of childhood vaccines. Doctors only know what pharmaceutical companies tell them and what they learned in medical schools funded by the pharmaceutical companies and they get bonuses for the vaccines they give. It is all about money. The bottom line is that parents need to be making intelligent, informed decisions based on facts and knowing the risks and no one should be forced to put something in a healthy baby or child they don’t want to and have to live with the consequences.
AMEN! I find it interesting that those who've done the deep-dive research into this topic come to the same conclusions as you and Lori. While those who haven't (and STILL take the media/government at their word, even after the last 4 years!) blindly parrot the tired talking points we see in this thread. I am encouraged, however, that more people are finally willing to remove the wool from their eyes. PS, sorry about your child.
Lori, my sister nearly died from polio in the early 1950s - then we got the Salk/Sabin vaccine. Today, polio is nearly extinct. Every kid gets the MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccine for a good reason - it saves lives and avoids community outbreaks. COVID vaccines have saved millions of lives; don’t confuse the inept rollout campaign with the overall efficacy and safety of the vaccine itself.
And by your post, you are indeed echoing the anti-vax zealots.
I feel the phrase “anti-vax zealots” is unfair. The fact is the public is drastically ill informed about the details of our childhood vaccine program. In 1986 a law was passed granting pharmaceutical companies (who lobbied for it) no liability for their products. I am not aware of any other product—mandated to boot!—for which the manufacturers have zero liability. Since that law passed, the childhood vaccine schedule has tripled. Most citizens are unaware that many developed countries have far fewer vaccines for children . During that time period as well, chronic disease in American children has risen alarmingly, from 12 percent to over 50 percent. This topic bears much more scrutiny than it has received. A Hep B vaccine, for example, which is given at birth in this country, was tested for five days in less than 200 children, a vastly inadequate and underpowered study.
You say don't confuse the inept Covid rollout campaign, but that was the wake up call. Because we were, as adults who are paying attention, watched how the entire campaign was built on a foundation of lies. This sent a lot of us searching for information about the past and the past revealed the same foundation of lies. Over and over again the same foundation of lies. I know, believe me, how unpopular it is to say the things I am saying, but it's time they are said. The polio vaccine did not cure polio. There are mountains of information on this topic that I couldn't possibly share here. I realize that people want to believe we have not been lied to and I understand that. It's takes an open-minded person to see through all the societal programming.
60 years from now they will teach people about Covid and how the V saved lives and omitted from that history lesson will be all the bad and evil that happened and how most of it was lies. But we know that, because we lived it. But will people in 60 years know that? No. Not unless some non-programmed people dig deeply to find the truth.
Take that entire playbook and place it on Polio and the like. All lies.
Read Dissolving Illusions - The industrial revolution with all it's chemicals pumping into the air, water and food was poisoning people. People were becoming sick even paralyzed from chemical poisoning in the water, air and food. It's all well documented. It wasn't done intentionally, but it was happening. Progress must move forward, so all the industrial poisoning was labeled a disease "Polio". A polio diagnosis was given to so many for so many different things (think gun shot victim testing positive for covid) - then they created a vaccine for polio and at the same time started to relabel conditions that would previously be labeled polio something else and magically polio disappeared. It was all lies and illusions and people bought it. There are many details to the above story that can't be written here, but if you are interested in the topic please read Dissolving Illusions. It will surely open your eyes to decades of deceit.
Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects.
Measles cases in Philadelphia this week.
Candace Owen has an entire series on Measles in her "Shot in the Dark" series on childhood vaccines. Measles are not deadly. The vaccine for measles is more deadly and harmful than getting measles. The package insert, which no one reads, for the MMR vaccine is quite eye-opening and would send anyone walking away from it if they took the time to read it. But we have been programmed to go along. I for one am glad that so many eyes have been opened. Childhood vaccination is at an all time low.
Babies are born perfect and do not need to be injected with toxic chemicals with massive side effects.
Unless your a man = impotence.
Agree, however, what about striving to point out why the polio vaccine served to eradicate polio, whereas we ain’t getting rid of the flu. If you can explain that to , say, my grandmother, you’ll be a hero.
100%, Lori. Thanks for this post and all your followups. Another great book is Turtles All the Way Down. Actually, there are many more, as well. Reading through the responses to you, it seems there are still so many people in the dark about this subject. Fortunately, covid has cracked that darkness, through which light is penetrating and will flood in soon enough. Keep fighting the good fight.
Watch out for the chemicals. Since the Industrial Revolution, countless millions have died from dihydrogen monoxide, which just happens to be the main component of acid rain.
Hey Lori, your crazy is showing; might want to tuck that back in.
Hey PH, your programming is showing; YOU might want to tuck that back in. ;)
“Let’s just imagine that there is a Taiwan crisis and they send two aircraft carrier groups, and the Chinese just sink both the carriers”
————————————————————
Yes but remember how we saved 14% on low quality products for a while and closed all those gross factories?
I love how the bill for the actual cost of ‘free trade’ is coming due at the exact same time that David From is telling me that overthrowing the government of Russia is actually going to be quite cost effective.
We would sink 2 Chinese carriers if China sent them to support a a takeover of Catalina island. No problem. When you are near the shore of a nation with a powerful, modern, military, you are likely to lose.
Warships are mostly for fighting other warships. In the age-old contest between ship and shore artillery, the shore usually wins, just because a ship is a much much bigger target that is easier to see and more fragile than a well-dug in artillery piece (or rocket launcher.) The only way the navy can survive against shore installations is to stay outside the kill radius. That only works if it can shoot farther than the shore guns. Naval rifles were much bigger up to the 1950s than any guns mounted on shore but that all changed with aircraft and cruise missiles.
I think they say that China can hit ships 1000 miles out to sea. That is farther than carrier strike aircraft can fly and get back to the ship unless you arrange for aerial refueling, but that takes up deck space for the tanker planes and requires the unarmed tankers to fly partway into harm's way. Ship-launched cruise missiles have to know what they are looking for on shore. The land-launched missiles already know, and China has enough of them to swarm the carrier's defences and sink her.
Conclusion: Don't sail within 1000 miles of China. Launch a nuke from a submarine lurking off shore.
Good bit there. Accurate. One quibble in two parts: 1. a submarine lurking offshore has no way to know if it is detected or not. China would have excellent sub detection defenses by now. And of course, as in much of spycraft, if you detect the sub, you give no indication until there is a good reason to act. 2. launching a nuke is not a step you would take in that instance, because it is pretty final. Launch a nuke at China's mainland from offshore, and they will retaliate at least double at our mainland. A full-on exchange would take us both out forever.
But, it would end the global warming problem.
My understanding is that the United States Navy knows that its nuclear-powered submarines have not ever been tracked by either Russia or China and that the PLA Navy cannot sink an American sub with enough confidence that it can deny their territorial waters to them. This could be wrong but that claimed invisibility is the basis of the Trident deterrent and likely applies to the attack subs that launch non-nuclear cruise missiles and sink Chinese ships with torpedoes. But you are of course right. Early use of nuclear warheads against Chinese military targets would not be a good idea except on Armageddon Day.
You are right as to what is in the public sphere. I think it is funny that people think our military capability is recorded in the public sphere though. Having grown up in a military family I feel very confident that the public sphere is mostly just what our military industrial complex wants to have our enemies know. China fear reminds me of Soviet fear right before the wall came down. Their greatest ability was in keeping down their own population.
Thank you for that perceptive comment. As Winston Churchill said after the Battle of Britain which on paper looked like it would be a slam-dunk for the Luftwaffe, “Mr. Hitler said England would have its neck wrung like a chicken. I can only say, Some chicken! Some neck!” (Quoting freely from memory.)
You ever think how it was trade between "neighbors" started everything? Opposite John Rawls thinking, I think everybody should make due with what they were born to. With that I put forth there is no "free will," because I had nothing to do with being here. Everything follows....
So if I can grow only potatoes I should just eat them forever? Not sell my surplus to my neighbour who raises meat and can't grow potatoes but would like to eat mine? Wouldn't we both be better off if we can both eat steak and frites, even if I have to give him a lot of potatoes in return for one steak? From there you are sending camels to China to bring back silk and spices to Venice.
yeah yeah yeah, I know all that. That really isn't what I was talking about, but I'll take you on anyway, up close. See, dammit, I was born into a farming family. I hated it, but that's beside the point. See, lovely Susan (I'm sure -- all the Susan's I knew were lovely), if you can grow potatoes, you can also grow carrots and beans and tomatoes and lettuce, and have cows for milk and beef and hogs and pigs for ham sandwiches and bacon, and chickens for eggs and Sunday dinners, and have horses and mules for power, and everything else, like wheat in the field for bread and corn for good poo poos. You don't need no stinking trade, because the guy down the road has the same stuff. But, trade is fun, it's a pastime. It creates tension, melodrama and sometimes real drama. Without it we wouldn't have Charles Dickins No thinker, besides me, has ever questioned trade, that I know of. Maybe it's time to just throw a thought at it. I did, and I went, "Oh oh, huh."
Frank luntz has completely jumped the shark. Not a doctor Jill is a grasping greedy person who clearly doesn’t want to have to be alone with Joey. Hence she’ll never relax her grip on the WH. Dems are stuck with Joey.
Frank Luntz for all intents & purposes had a nervous breakdown rather publicly, then he retreated as a result of 2016. He couldn't get a grip, he practically cried when he gave interviews - so I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say.
It’s INTENTS AND PURPOSES!!!! What the hell is an “intensive purpose”?
Sorry for the over the top pedantry but that drives me crazy.
He should of seen it coming ;)
😘
🥰
I want to know more about this nervous breakdown. I used to regard Frank for his good read on public opinion. He doesn't seem to be all that good anymore. Everyone seems to be working within the borders of narrative land and that strikes me as disingenuous.
How about a vow, nobody votes for idiots that support the government telling you how to live your life. Vote for freedom of thought and actions. No DEI or men are women, just vote for whoever says, you the American can decide your future and what you want to be.
RFK Jr. would be my choice if I were American. Always surprised how little he’s mentioned.
He lost me with his support of the Palestinians and his misunderstanding of the need to develop more nuclear power.
Because the lapdog legacy media is just following their Establishment marching orders. Which is why RFK Jr's campaign is trailblazing through the alternative, independent and podcast channels.
I will gladly share with Tyler today’s grocery bill. Then he can convince me my eyes are lying about inflation.
How is Jill Biden one of our best in modern times? Please explain.
I don't get it!
(collective shrug)
She's not - she's mediocre in every way....but most people like 'vanilla'.
At best she's only the President's wife. It's a waste of thinking to spend any time wondering about her.
I think about her because of her physical and emotional proximity to the President. This is particularly true given his cognitive decline. She may be having significant influence on U.S. policies both at home and abroad. I have not seen any suggestion that she stays out of politics. Again, I think of the Woodrow Wilson example.
That is a possibility. How much her views differ or not from Joes is unknown. At any rate, I think, but can't prove that Joe's policies are made by other people. I doubt that he makes any of his own, in contrast to Trump, who had to be talked out his own policies. or at least his ideas. It's not a policy until it's signed.
You know about a year ago or so Instagram was seemingly trying to force feed the word "rizz" into my vocabulary. It was so aggressive in this behavior that I started actively flagging posts with the word in it. I am never up to date on lingo the kids are using, but this felt like the company itself was trying to make "fetch" happen for some nefarious corporate marketing proof to advertisers. I know it has an "origin" but I often wonder if you looked closer at that story of where it came from you might discover there is some historical engineering involved. The internet has me suspicious of everything these days :D
Matt Taibbi did a serious and ascerbic critique of Ferguson’s position, pointing out that more than 50% of Americans are tired of the endless wars and their costs. He lumped Ferguson in with the elites and hawks at the Hoover Institute who roll their eyes at the idea that average Americans ought to have a say in how their country is run. Generally I like Ferguson and the “Goodfellows’ podcast the Hoover guys do, but Taibbi made me think, and I tend to agree. Enough with the world policeman stuff. Fight your own damn wars.
But someone needs to keep the sea lanes secure for commerce. Britain's Royal Navy used to do that. Maybe the United States doesn't need to defend Taiwan. But it has to keep chokepoints open like the Straits of Malacca. The United States would suffer if someone else choked them.
My brain agrees with you, but my heart says why would anyone point their children towards the military after the politicians so totally f'd up Afghanistan! Seems our political leaders learned nothing in Vietnam.
So you need a draft.
I would tell my kids to go to Canada first, can't believe I said that! But I can't see fighting for the leaders of this country!!
No one fights for the leaders of this country, they fight to preserve this country and our way of life.
I agree, but you still have to live with the decisions that they make. Military recruiting goals are being missed and I am running into ex-cops who are leaving because their leaders do not have their backs.
How can anyone still believe that? The ONLY thing our military fights for is hegemony and imperialism. NOT "democracy." NOT "human rights." NOT "national security." It is all, and will only ever be, about the Benjamins.
You do know that you can't just decide to move to Canada and expect them to let you stay. I mean people do overstay their visitor privileges and disappear but you can't claim asylum to stay legally. If you get caught you will be deported back to the U.S.. You can apply to immigrate but you need to have a job offer. A lot of draft dodgers and deserters came north during the Vietnam war and claimed asylum but we got tired of them bumming around the college quads smoking dope and giving our women chlamydia so we changed the law so that America is a safe third country. No one can claim asylum at the border anymore.
Ha,ha …”giving our women chlamydia”…it’s these little gems that make me love the comment section as much as the news articles here!
A draft for all 18 year-olds. Two years of service to the country, not necessarily military.
Seriously. How do you think the Royal Navy kept its wooden-wall sailing ships manned for two centuries against the steady trickle of desertion, accidents, buggery, disease, and, occasionally, battle casualties? Impressment of anyone of seafaring age unlucky enough to come into the clutches of a press gang in a harbour town, that's how. Even merchant sailors returning to England after a long voyage from, say, India would fear the sight of a king's ship flying the white ensign in the roads to Portsmouth because they knew they were likely to be boarded and press't into His Majesty's service, within site of home. Different times.
Unfortunately we need Taiwan. Chips
Which is probably why China won’t invade. It needs chips, too. Wrecking or starving the place ends that.
I read the Taibbi piece you mentioned but I arrived late and didn’t have the time or energy to take on 300 people. I think Matt is dead wrong on this issue as I have elaborated on somewhere around here. His viewpoint is understandably colored by our bungled efforts in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, among others. But he overlooks the fact that the world has avoided a world war since the 1940’s, despite the continued efforts of communist countries.. it’s sad to say, but that’s a long time, historically speaking. This isn’t an accident or anomaly. They are the result of Pax Americana. Absent the U.S. - and I’m speaking to students of history, not those ignorant of history - how long do you think it will be before global order collapses into a free for all? It will not be years, it will be months, and the world will descend into what could be centuries of chaos and extremism. It won’t help us at all.
Well, over 50% of Americans disagree. I bet the residents of East Palastine, Ohio are among them.
As we throw billions, even trillions at forever wars, our nation crumbles. If we spent more on developing a chip technology, developing our own energy, becoming strong and independent, would it matter if Russia and Ukraine agreed to a cease fire? Why did America intrude on Putin’s peace offer with Ukraine almost two years ago? Why did Biden trash Trump’s Abraham Accords? Why does Biden keep funneling money to Iran? Why does Biden laughably talk with Xi about climate change and not his threats in the south China Sea? As other have noted, we have become a laughing stock internationally. So our solution is to keep indebting ourselves to financial collapse as a way to appear relevant?
And sending our young men out to bleed and die for borders five thousand miles away while our leaders leave our border wide open.
I would say our inability to enforce our own laws leaves our border wide open. It’s not normally the role of the U.S. military to police our borders, but with the chaos down there now, who knows if that will change.
It doesn’t concern me that 50% of Americans disagree with me. That’s the whole point of forums like this. And I completely agree that Biden’s foreign policy - a continuation of Obama’s - is at best incoherent. We need better policies to promote things like advanced chip production here. An example: Taiwan Semi has a brand new plant ready to go in NW Phoenix, but they can’t find engineers in the U.S. to staff it (no shortage of DEI officers, I’m sure). They asked to bring in engineers from Taiwan to get it going and train up an American workforce, but those immigration visas were not available. With an open southern border-can you imagine? So it sits idle. I don’t even need to mention U.S. energy policy, because everyone already knows how looney it is. Regulatory policy is an area where Trump was far more effective than Biden, no question there.
Sadly, wars will be with us indefinitely whether we like it or not. Over 40% of S&P 500 earnings come from overseas, including much of our incremental growth. A domestic military strategy is not compatible with global markets. Emotionally I too want to retreat from the world’s conflicts. Intellectually, though, I think it would be a colossal mistake. We can fight fewer, shorter wars if we fight to win them overwhelmingly. We don’t do that anymore, and it has the perverse effect of making things worse.
We agree on your latter point. Go Roman, or don’t go at all.
Then get out of other country's.
Out of the Mediterranean too.............
I go back and forth with this question. There is no doubt 20 years ago we started to slowly pull away from the globalist assumptions. We are now in full flight back to a more regionalist approach. I am liking the idea of sending old weapon systems and no troops to countries fighting off parties that are not friendly to the USA and its interest. Bringing back manufacturing to the US is also a good trend. So, I think you are basically getting your wish, just in a slow and different way.
Especially since we’re printing endless dollars to support a war machine. Ending that creamery of corruption will have to end from within, as a political revolution of sorts. I don’t see any politician, even including the “anti-war” statesman, who would support a demilitarization. Even though, that’s exactly what we need.
I think we should defend our allies and the west generally because our civilization is superior to the others and worth defending. This requires intervening in other countries on occasion when they are senselessly attacked.
This isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan we’re talking about, these are allies fighting to stay alive. To turn our backs on them simply because one has plugged their ears and convinced themselves anyone who disagrees with them is advocating for “forever wars” and “doesn’t care about America,” is foolish. Don’t conflate the wars of the early 2000s with our friends just trying to survive.
I think we should help them, that’s all.
No way. I will surrender to Xi at once then design more smart cameras to keep you cheerful or else.
Frank Luntz has more confidence in Jill Biden’s good sense than I do.
(She married Joe Biden, just sayin’.)
Wasn't Jill his kids' babysitter - then his wife died and Joe married the babysitter? Yes, it's that creepy.
Did Mz. Jill get her Phd. before or after she baby sat?
Not a Phd - EdD...kinda like a GED vs a high school diploma
Thanks for the clarification.
Niall Ferguson is exactly right. Many Americans understandably want to "fix our problems at home", as if that's even happening, and they assume we can't do two things at once. That's not fair - our government disgraced us all in Afghanistan and slow walks aid to Ukraine, all the while botching COVID and abandoning any pretense of controlling our southern border. So it's clear our government can do multiple things at once.
To put Ferguson's point more plainly, Americans live in a fantasy land where they wear peace signs and are reflexively anti-war. Ah, the luxury of being children in a country that has not been invaded, its people slaughtered - one of the few on earth. OK, have it your way - let's say we withdraw from the rest of the planet and retreat to our shores... What happens?
First, look at all the items in your house. Most of them are from overseas. Well, that ends. Products become much more narrow, and scarce. We have money but little to spend it on. Inflation soars. With half of the S&P 500's marketplace gone and global financing shrinking, the Stock and Bond Markets both crash. Millennials favor experiences over things. But overseas travel narrows to places like Mexico and Hawaii as the rest of the world devolves into regional wars without the restraint of Pax Americana, no matter how imperfect it was. Our longstanding allies, lacking any deterrent, quickly develop nuclear, chemical and biologic weapons arsenals. Regional alliances and rivalries re-emerge, and war becomes ubiquitous as China takes Taiwan, South Korea "negotiates" with the North and an isolated Japan goes on war footing. Africa becomes a shooting gallery, and the Mideast erupts as Iran and Turkey fight to control the region. Israel fights for its life. Russia helps itself to its former USSR territories and then some, as Putin has long advocated. Europe does what Europe always does. Global warming ceases as a topic of conversation. In an increasingly dangerous world, the U.S. government becomes more authoritarian, because we can't risk the chaos we're seeing overseas. Who will be the targets of future crackdowns remains to be seen.
Yes, it's unfair we have to be the world's policeman. Yes, it's expensive. In fact, the whole thing is terrible. It's just that, in today's world, the alternative is worse. Much, much worse.
If we just have to police the world we damn well need to figure out how to get paid for it. Bankrupting ourselves is a poor plan.
Agreed, Steven. Europe's economy is the size of ours - why are we paying anything for their defense?
Because the Europeans and Canadians knew you Americans were more afraid of international communism than they were. So they played you, getting the defence against it for essentially free while they spent their tax money on pensions and welfare and socialized medicine and public transit.
Fact, and checkmate to Susan!
We were and are paid. We have had our PAX Americana prosperity because we were the world cops.
Maybe you're right. But we seemed to squander it. And we can be no one's cop if we're broke. We're getting pretty close
It is our defense deficits that support much of the world's wealth. In the modern world, all money is also debt. The deficit "debt" of the government is the money that the private sector in the USA, Europe, China, Canada, India, have as positive wealth.
Congress knows. It's all a game. We cannot bankrupt except by essentially shooting ourselves in the head.
Thank you so much for your comment. How do you view all the rants on Substack insisting we withdraw from NATO, dismantle the MIC, etc. in their views the US is the cause of wars, not the deterrent to wars. I grew up with parents/ family who lived through and/or served in WWII. It got ground into me that the US and NATO were essential to keeping the world from nuclear war. Traveling has convinced me that many peoples in 3rd world countries to Europe look to us for aid, assurance, guidance. We have our problems, our corruption...but tell me what nation does not. As long as we can hold together and reunite...somehow, someway, I guess I’d rather be here than anywhere else. Unfortunately somehow, someway seems impossible in 2024. Maybe Biden appears weak, but Trump? Heaven help us.
No, just heaven help you get over the TDS. If you even remotely think that we are in any way better than when Trump was president, you are truly delusional. I don't particularly want Trump back either, but we will not survive another Biden term because that's actually Kamala. Think about it.
Kamala? Obama, more likely. Although we might be forced to listen to Kamala as the public "president." That would be unbearable.
We are better off now. By many metrics. I think this country can survive 4 years of most anyone. Republican hopefuls or Democrat, certainly Kamala. But not another 4 years of Trump. I’ve never felt that about any candidate before, and I’ve voted in presidential elections for more than 40 years. Won some, lost some but always knew there’d be another election in 4 years. even if he would agree to step down after 4 years, the mess this vindictive, vengeful, narcissistic autocratic man would leave our institutions and reputation in, I can’t imagine. Read Sea Sentry again. We don’t live in this world alone.
I just didn't feel we were so bad off under Trump. I am horrified by the obvious corrupt money machine the Bidens are, and even more so at the people who simply dismiss it because he's not Trump. Never mind the origins of the money. The Mafia- like distribution schemes. That doesn't raise some red flags in your world? Damn!
By the way, I've been voting, And paying attention, for 50 years. We are not in a good place here
Well on that we can agree!!
Are you familiar with Trumps family business history? His complete lack of decency or integrity? Calling fallen soldiers suckers? Using verbiage straight from Nazi propaganda? What about taking money from foreign countries while in office? All he had to do is go to Congress and clear it but no, he’s above the law. The documents, just give them up but no, he’s above the law. Just concede the election, run again in four years, but no, he’s above the law. Just get some fake electors to help out. J6…just Call. It. Off. But no, he watched it happen and this country is torn apart. What about Kushner getting what, a 2 BILLION dollar investment in his new equity firm from the Saudis after working as his FILs advosir to SA? And didn’t disclose it, he’s above the law. 91 indictments….and don’t tell me they are political. No way. You and I would be sitting in jail somewhere by now but he isn’t because, he’s above the law.
91 indictments….surely the Republicans can do better. And despite 5,6 years of investigation(started by Trump)…not a single indictment not even a smoking gun. I’ll take my chances on Biden. And yes Kamala.
I could change a few names and words here and there and that would sound like a a Hunter Biden diary entry. What's your point? I was still better off under Trump. So was the country. And the world (except those poor TDS sufferers, bless your hearts). Things have become pretty unsettled since Joe took over. Have you not even noticed?
What I notice about rabid Trump supporters is their aggressiveness.
I, for one, have never been a Democrat. I had been a Republican and then became an Independent because I did not like the evangelical, born-again Christian slant the GOP began taking in the 1990s.
Hunter Biden fills me with loathing. He's much worse than Trump's sons, who seem to have inherited their father's nasty streak but not his brains.
I am not a fan of Joe Biden, leftists, leftist antisemites, BLM, DEI, New York City politicians, or pro-Hamas gay people (surely one of the strangest alliances in town).
But you can pretend to know what I believe because I think Donald Trump's performance as president was, in general, disgraceful -- and despite my having said I thought some of his policies were very good. You feel you "know" me purely because I do not believe Trump is a hero.
Pretty amazing that you paint me as a leftist.
No need for insults and name-calling here.
So long.
You are are confusing character weaknesses with leadership ability. We are all aware of the litany of sins that Trump has committed. I think you left out a few. Are you going easy on him? :-) And yet he leads in the polls despite 91 indictments. Which is silly. No one has committed 91 felonies. Make it an even 100 and he will be a shoo-in.
Are all those people who are planning to vote for him stupid and willing to throw away their freedom to fascism? Maybe they are just sick of the oppressor/oppressed totalitarian view of everything and know that for all Trump's bluster and crassness, he can't change the Constitution by himself.
In your previous comment you say, "Even if would agree to step down after 4 years". That's not how it works. He doesn't have to agree or concede anything. At noon on Inauguration Day, January 2029, President Trump's term will end. Period. At that moment, the new president will have been sworn in and the Secret Service detail and the nuclear football will be transferred (with new codes) to the newly sworn-in president. If D. Trump, private citizen, remains sulking in the White House, the DC Capitol police will come and arrest him for trespassing. It doesn't change the fact that on that day he is no longer president. There is nothing he can do to change that. You are creating worries where none exist, which is what we mean by Trump Derangement Syndrome. All you have said is that you don't like Trump. Tough. He's likely to be the next president. Get used to it.
Biden’s shell companies? Aliases? Payments to just about every family member for no services rendered? This is just for starters. How about allowing millions of non-citizens to flow into the country, no questions asked, and then flying them to different cities at night during a pandemic? Can a President just unilaterally decide to ignore immigration law? What about those poor democrats in Martha’s Vineyard who hosted a handful for about one day? A political stunt! How horrible and insensitive. But having thousands camping around the country, no big deal.
Ann, I agree with you. New Yorkers (well, many of us New Yorkers) will never forget that Donald Trump promised the Bonwit Teller friezes -- high Art Deco -- to the Met and then sent wreckers in one night and destroyed them. "They weren't much anyway," he said casually when the museum questioned him.
Or that countless lawyers and contractors he'd hired had to sue him for salaries due. He countersued in court until they ran out of money and gave up.
Or all the banks (and investors) left holding the bag when he went bankrupt four -- more? -- times. He has no conscience.
Which doesn't mean I don't appreciate his moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Or his recognizing that we cannot absorb and support millions of migrants lacking language skills or perhaps any skills. And yes, I know they're the guys who reroof people's houses. There are just so many roofs that need redoing.
Trump with his name writ large is all he's interested in. It's a problem. It makes him testy and unreliable and money-hungry.
Ann22, allow me to reassure you that the Dept of Justice, the Dept of State, the intelligence services,... all of our govt agencies agree with you and are willing to lie, falsify evidence and launch spurious investigations to remove Trump from office. They will further cover up criminality by a political rival to prevent Trump from winning an election. Nothing to worry about! The govt has got this under control.
Nonsense. We all witnessed him hoarding documents, we have all seen and heard evidence of the fake elector scheme and his total lack of action to stop J6 before it got so out of hand, we all hear him continuing to tell the stolen election lies. People who supported him and carried out the illegal schemes he and his lawyers promoted are now sitting in jail , being convicted by juries. Spurious investigations? Hardly. You or I would be in jail right having committed any number of his many offenses.
If it's not Kamala, it may be Jill. Did you ever see the movie El Cid? With AI, how would we even know Joe is gone? I suspect Jill is the underestimated Whisperer to Joe. There is precedent: President Woodrow Wilson had a stroke, and his second wife Edith literally ran the country in his cognitive absence for a couple of years.
A stroke doesn't imply cognitive absence. A single stroke may make it difficult or impossible to speak or communicate, but cognition is not usually impaired. If the Chief Executive could indicate understanding of information given to him and then indicate what his decision was, he would still have capacity to run the nation. Of course I don't know Woodrow Wilson's medical history in detail but the same issue comes up with Sen. John Fetterman. He was widely dismissed as being "cognitively impaired" after his stroke and therefore unfit to take office. News reports indicate that he has dysphasia, typical for a stroke, which makes it difficult to articulate his thoughts. But this does not indicate cognitive impairment and I think the voters of Pennsylvania figured this out and elected him.
I’m not sure what point you are making, but President Wilson’s complete incapacity is not in doubt, nor is the fact that Mrs. Wilson literally ran the United States during his incapacity. I agree strokes can manifest in a variety of ways ranging from mild and/or transitory to severe and irreversible. President Wilson fell into the latter category. President Biden does not have obvious stroke symptoms as Senator Fetterman did for some period, but he indicates clear evidence of cognitive decline that is likely to continue to the point of incapacity. At that point Kamala, Jill and the United States will have to deal with the consequences.
Behind every successful man…
...is a woman who wants to be in control.
You’re killin’ me, Ann!
NATO is a 75-year-old pact - at the very least it should be reassessed given a changed world. There's nothing wrong with reevaluating systems. Trump is right about that.
I agree. But since 1945, no nuclear war. Despite terrible nuclear proliferation , Cold War, still no nuclear war. 75 years. Nothing wrong with reassessing, but didn’t Trump want to pull out of NATO?. Read Sea Sentry again. We do not live in this world alone.
Trump wanted to get European nations to pay into NATO the 2% they promised they would but haven't for decades. He at least got some movement on that front - but NATO still needs revision.
The 2% figure is the percentage of the GDP that each NATO country pledged a long time ago to spend on its own defence budget as an indicator that it was pulling its weight. They aren't paying anything "into NATO" for the alliance to spend corporately. You're right that only Britain, France, and the former Iron Curtain countries come close. Most (including Canada) have not come close to 2% for decades and probably never will. There is just too much that seems more pressing (like pensions, welfare, and health care) for an aging population to spend money on. Also, not enough young people want to be soldiers. You can't spend the money if no recruits sign up. You don't want your army composed of Muslim conscripts who can't speak German (or French or Dutch or Italian or Norwegian), do you?
..and so the USA has been subsidizing European defense since the end of WW2. Whenever I hear Europeans brag about their generous welfare and health programs, they should thank the American taxpayer.
As if Biden’s policies were making America and the world safer. Too much NPR.
Oh you are forgetting the New World Order, where some unelected elites somewhere else in the world are going to run everything EVERYTHING! And they will solve all of the world’s problems!!
You're right, Marilyn - I did forget that. My bust. Maybe one of those New World Order acolytes can send us a postcard.
I know that argument, the “we have to for the betterment of the world” argument. The, “it might be ugly be we must press on” argument. While your assessment is likely correct for the world that has been built within US hegemony, it is inevitable that empires shift over time. Much of how the US spends its foreign policy energy is frenetically engaging in more or less futile attempts at preserving our dominance of global trade and finance via military conflict after military conflict. In a future with a strong global China (especially in Africa), a Russia that dominates energy and likely grain supply for all of Europe (with a likely win in Ukraine claiming the Dunbas region), many growing nations buying into BRICS, the US is counting its cookies but soon it will only be crumbs. And the more we spend on global conflict the less we spend on strengthening from within.
Yes, if the current system collapses we are at great threat of many negatives and if we can’t figure out how to strengthen our nation from within before that inevitability catches up with us, then the hard times will be even harder. I guess I just think it’s best we get a head start on stabilizing our production, energy supplies, infrastructure, political prowess, before it’s too late and we are forced to “pick up the pieces.”
15 years or so ago, we started the process of unwinding that system in favor of a regional system. Probably about 10 years away from being able to withdraw at this point.
Good comments, Daniel. It's true that empires shift over time, and I think it's pretty clear that, absent dramatic and unlikely changes, the U.S. appears to be heading into a period of decline. I don't agree that we fight wars to "preserve dominance in global trade". Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.
Russia will remain a big player in energy, but hardly dominant. The grain point is a good one. Again, not dominant, but Ukraine is truly one of the world's bread baskets. Your points in some ways reinforce my own. You recognize China's and Russia's ambitions, suggest we disengage from the world. Two questions: (1) do we give the countries we will abandon a window to prepare? And (2) What is our red line? Do we throw out the Monroe Doctrine?
The point about focusing inward to get our house together is emotionally compelling. We'll be picking up the pieces overseas (or not), but perhaps from a position of strength. I personally doubt it but, hey, our internationalist policies haven't worked that well. Maybe we should try what you're suggesting.
Our global influence through military intervention has publicly been justified in many ways. Afghanistan was to weed out terrorists, Vietnam was to defend against communist expansion, Libya was to rid the world of a tyrant. However the justifications, our actions speak louder than the words. US soldiers defended opium fields in Afghanistan and helped the country increase work in the fields in exchange for a favorable deal on pharmaceutical opium (which likely lead to the opiate crisis we are dealing with). Vietnam was intended to create a strong trade center in an attempt to move in to Southeast Asia. Gaddafi, albeit not the icon of peaceful leaders, intended on creating an African currency separate from the dollar and the franc (it was Hillary Clinton’s visit to France while secretary that pushed the US into that conflict). Turn after turn the US has influenced the world stage militarily, and I think strong connections can be made to reason that one of our focuses in each conflict is to substantiate the world’s economic dependence on our markets. Even Ukraine. Only a year before the conflict the US official policy was to leave Ukraine be with some minor aid, and most politicians would have agreed the country is too corrupt to support further. But as Russia is a leading charge in the BRICS movement, I can see why we would find it vital to prevent a Russian win.
I don’t see a full disengagement from the world being possible. Most countries are so interlocked at this point that complete isolation would bring collapse to so many other nations. I do see a re-engagement in our place in the world, and that of our trade partners. What it would look like is impossible to say. It’s likely China still depends too much on our food exports to fully separate, Europe as well. The US has a powerhouse of agriculture that feeds a lot nations. So I see our pulling back from the world stage happening overtime, pending some major policial catastrophe. I don’t see a full retraction, nor would I support one. Of course, all of that is if we have a choice. If our currency falls and we become insolvent, maybe we won’t have a choice. All the more reason to divest in foreign wars.
The Monroe Doctrine was a nice declaration of US independence from Britain. How it has been used over time has been a lot of missteps. Reagan’s contra wars in Nicaragua wasn’t to protect Nicaraguans. US corporate take over of Guatemala and Costs Rica has arguably destroyed populations. And as we see china’s investments into Mexico without the US raising any red flags seems to me we could throw out the idea of a western world not being influenced by others. Again, necessity will dictate how the cards fall. I just think, as you seem to agree to some point, it’s vital we pull back now while we still have a choice.
That was quite a tour de force of mostly left wing anti-capitalist conspiratorial half-truths. I would need a long time to address all of these, and I’m not sure many people care. I will grant, however, that we fight unnecessary wars for superficial reasons. Any military engagement should have a clear set of goals that make sense to Americans, should be fought to prevail quickly and thoroughly, and we should have a good exit strategy when done. Part of our problem is we elect superficial ill-informed idiots to Congress and the White House. It’s much harder to navigate the seas with people who can’t swim, can’t sail and can’t read a compass.
No argument here on the idiots in congress. I am definitely not anti capitalist though. I own a business and am a huge fan of the pro-business tax law in the US.
My views as stated before are the result of me researching each case and having travelled to these countries to interview people. Survivors of the Nicaraguan revolt against, as they called it, United States interference (Reagan’s investment into Nicaragua went into training Hondurans to attack the Mesquite land in eastern Nicaragua) or mayan guatemalans having their land sold to corporations without their input in a deal the US brokered. I mean, it’s terribly easy to find the speeches Gaddafi was giving just months before the US and France air bombed Libya. At this point. It’s funny you’d suspect I’m left wing. I’m a libertarian from South Dakota. I’m fascinated by the amount of people who sheepishly listen to the narrative when we have access to the information ourselves.
Well gee, that’s interesting. I’ve spent time in Nicaragua and Guatemala as well, and I’m fluent in Spanish. Both decry the corruption of their governments, that’s for sure. Every Nicaraguan I spoke to wanted Ortega out. He’s not our guy as you know. Can Cubans be a bad influence too, or just Americans? The Guatemalans I spoke with were mostly campesinos and not very engaged in politics at all. We’ve certainly sullied our reputation with some of our interventions in Latin America, as have others like the Russians and Cubans. But all those Latino countries are often engaged in the same left/right struggles we are still having in the U.S., as well as many territorial disputes over the last century. We are often nowhere to be seen.
The Ghaddafi thing made no sense to me. His vision was to create one Islamic caliphate from Morocco to the Middle East. That went nowhere. His ability to generate a pan-national currency was zero, so that’s not a theory I can buy. Like Ukraine, giving up his nukes was a big mistake. I haven’t heard an explanation that makes any sense for why we would take him out. Now the Russians and Turks control the country through their warlords, and it’s total chaos. Do you have a book or in depth article that delves into Obama’s reasoning?
You seem drunk on the MIC koolaid. We don't need to militarily occupy other countries (i.e. having our bases and/or troops stationed in them) to trade with them, have our multinational corporations in them, to engage in tourism travel to them. As for regional wars breaking out, in most cases the US is the reason for them, rather than the deterrent of them. Most of the global strife is BECAUSE of us. Contrary to your dire (and frankly, baseless) predictions, without US hegemony, the world might actually see PEACE.
Really? Was the U.S. the cause of WW I? How about WW II? Korea? What would a map of the world look like if we stayed home over the last 100 years? If things go your way, we might find out. I do agree that some wars are pretty dumb, Afghanistan and Iraq being recent examples.
I think Americans have to get this notion out of their heads that peace is just around the corner if we all just sing kumbaya and go home. Any reading of history will tell you the world has never seen more than brief stretches of peace, one of the longest being the post WW II Pax Americana period, clearly now coming to an end. One of the interesting things in reading history is to see how many countries hoped for peace or relied on fickle allies and exist no more. There will be wars, and there are better and worse ways to fight aggression from people who don't care about "peace". I'd rather address Russian imperial ambitions in Ukraine, with Ukrainians doing the fighting, than in Poland and the Baltics with us doing the fighting. On the other hand, Taiwan is no more defensible than if China wanted to defend Catalina Island from an American invasion.
I said the global strife and regional wars are because of us, referring to relatively recent history (including Vietnam).
Russia doesn't have "imperial ambitions" in Ukraine or anywhere else. Again, put down the MIC koolaid. Don't believe me, fine. But you can mark my words.
To truly understand what's happening in the world right now requires zooming out to the much bigger picture. There are ultimately only 2 factions at actual war: the West (with its unipolar/one-world ambitions) versus the Rest (with its goals for a multi-polar world). If we could just set aside our greed and lust for global control, and agree to be an equal partner in a world of decentralized power, world peace would be guaranteed.
Sounds like you have your own “the West is bad” kool aid. To say Russia doesn’t have imperial ambitions means you haven’t been listening to what Putin has been saying for some 25 years.
One world ambition is inherent to communism, which China still embraces and Russia did for a long time, adding countries to its fold and fomenting revolution around the world. Are those two countries part of the West?
When someone guarantees that a certain approach will bring peace, it suggests considerable naïveté. I’m guessing you’re pretty young, university educated/indoctrinated and haven’t lived abroad. We can talk about it at the Kool Aid bar. You bring yours, and I’ll bring mine.
I'm 54, graduated college long before wokeness infected higher ed, and have been researching world history for over 20 years. I have lived in Japan, and visited many countries in Asia and Europe. Sorry to burst your presumptuous bubble, but I'm far from naive.
What exactly do you think Putin has been saying? More to the point, what actual COUNTRIES has he taken back under Russian control?
"One world ambition is inherent to communism." -- It's ironic you accuse me of being naive when you state erroneous things like that. In fact, China is not a true communist government, as it has drastically reformed its economic system to include many free-market elements of capitalism. And Russia, as we all know, is a federal republic. Furthermore, it is actually the BRICS+ countries that are leading the endeavor for a multi-polar world. Look up that term. Also look up the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the Eurasia Economic Union. Prominent geopolitical historian Matthew Ehret writes excellent pieces on this topic. Here are a couple of his more comprehensive ones:
https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/07/13/the-russia-china-polar-silk-road-speeds-ahead/
https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/03/04/the-greater-eurasian-partnership-revives-americas-forgotten-hamiltonian-tradition/
He also does many interviews. Here you can hear him speak on the topic: https://rumble.com/v3rosd4-breaking-history-ep.-16-is-the-deep-state-baiting-new-brics-nations-into-a-.html
What countries has he taken back under Russian control? Well, let's start with Chechnya, which declared independence and was then invaded by the Russian army, with a Russian puppet leader installed. The prextext was the "Chechnyan" bombing of an appartment building, which the FSB's own documents indicated was an inside job.
Then there was the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 after their own declaration of independence, when the latter wanted to align itself with Western Europe.
And of course more recently there's the invasion of Crimea and Ukraine, whose territorial integrity and borders were guaranteed by Russia (and the U.S. and the U.K.) in the 1994 Budapest accords in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
Russia can call itself a "Federal Republic", but everyone knows that's a potemkin characterization - criticize the government or the president, and bad things happen. Ask the many dissidents he has had assassinated or imprisoned.
You say China is not a "true" communist government, as if we decide what form of communism is "true" or not, but the CCP completely controls China. They were just much smarter and less dogmatic than the former USSR in incorporating market principles to fuel their rise. Take a visit over there and criticize Xi or the CCP.
Niall Ferguson's scenario is something we all need to be thinking about. A major middle east conflict (nuclear?) would almost certainly involve the US in a big way (may be even with boots on ground). How many fronts can the US deal with at one time? A perfect storm, the time for Russia and China to make their moves.
Boots on the ground nuclear war... Hmm.
Agree. Bad juxtaposition of forces.
Hopefully, the same amount of fronts that the US dealt with in WW2.