Politics

[Neophyte]

You are correct: it is easy to assess quickly who is a complete ass.

If you are attempting to offend me I assure you that you won’t.
I was a professional asshole for years. I don’t care what your opinion is on political matters.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

If you are attempting to offend me I assure you that you won’t.
I was a professional asshole for years. I don’t care what your opinion is on political matters.

Actually sir, that wasn't directed at you other than building on what you had said, but honestly posited in a much more general sense.

I do find your stated "I don't care/isolationist" world view a curious approach to this particular forum. But do as you will.

 

[MauserM03Blog]

And what you're doing is what us blue collar guys call "Pissing in the wind" or as my old man used to say to me "You've got delusions of grandeur". The day the entire human race and it's political divisions coalesce around trying to change the climate will be when the dinosaurs return to earth.

I know that science can be hard to follow.

Imagine this. Your wife gets cancer and you’re consulting with sensible sounding oncologists. It’s a very steep learning curve. The science and technology is mind boggling. You love your wife and want the best for her. You Google the doctors and find they are world renowned experts. Do you pay attention to what they’re saying, or decide instead to take advice from unqualified people on social media?

If the latter, you’re doing exactly what people are doing in listening to Trump on climate change. He does not know what he’s talking about.

Would you take oncology advice from Trump?

 

[WAB]

I’m reasonably certain that the Prime Minister, for all his eccentricities, also had black tie in his baggage while visiting the White House House. Wardrobe is taking an outsized amount of attention, but if your son was going to a [much needed] job interview, you know everyone of us would rightly balk if he dressed like that.
If there is a Churchillian parallel to be made, it’s how to manage a difficult personality that is a necessary ally. Churchill describes this very tactfully in his excellent six volume autobiography of the Second World War, specifically with respect to DeGaulle. By this measure, Zelensky comes up very lacking.

I am a huge Churchill fan, but whenever you read any of his accounts, it is good to look for an opposing view to balance it. ‘The World Crisis’ is an excellent example. He began the war as First Lord of the Admiralty’ and finished as Lord of Munitions. In his works you will quickly realize that none of it was his fault.

And I would add that Churchill was known for his caustic wit and temper. If he had been ambushed like that, I seriously doubt that Trump and Vance would have stood a chance.

 

[YancyW]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1896033159675859080

 

[Neophyte]

Actually sir, that wasn't directed at you other than building on what you had said, but honestly posited in a much more general sense.

I do find your stated "I don't care/isolationist" world view a curious approach to this particular forum. But do as you will.

Just because I have a passport and have done some traveling doesn’t mean I endorse consensus building among nations or trade agreements that are not favorable to our interests.

I don’t care what other countries do so long as they stay out of America. Those who say we can’t be self sufficient as a nation…….They said the world was flat at one time too. Yes it would require a big change to our day to day living and we likely wouldn’t have it as easy as we have it now but it is possible. I really don’t give two bowel movements about the Middle East, Europe, or Asia.

If you can think it you can do it. The only question is how. Granted our economy would change. Greater value would be placed on some products that are today seen as commonplace. Change is the only constant.

If Russia wants Ukraine let them have it. If Germany wants to defend the Fulda Gap let them post their troops there. As for OPEC I’ll say that the Middle East should have been turned to glass over a generation ago.

I believe that WWII ruined us as a nation and all empires crumble. We are in our sunset period. WWII put us on the world stage and we went broke prosecuting police actions in countries we had no business being in afterwards. WWII led us closer to a one world government. Something I don’t want to see.

 

[Lone Star Bluegrass]

I am a huge Churchill fan, but whenever you read any of his accounts, it is good to look for an opposing view to balance it. ‘The World Crisis’ is an excellent example. He began the war as First Lord of the Admiralty’ and finished as Lord of Munitions. In his works you will quickly realize that none of it was his fault.

And I would add that Churchill was known for his caustic wit and temper. If he had been ambushed like that, I seriously doubt that Trump and Vance would have stood a chance.

First of all, hat tip from a fellow Churchill admirer, you’ve obviously studied the man more than the average bear. He’s one of those characters in history that you can’t help but love to read more and more about, on most any subject, at most any point in his life. I think one of the most fascinating things about Churchill is what he was able to accomplish while battling self doubt to a level that a modern psychologist would classify as depression.
I’ll agree that his opinionated nature did not endear him to all of his peers. As you know, he even switched parties midway through his career largely as a result of being unable to manage himself with the leadership of the Conservative Party at the time. Parliament is different from our American system, so to be out of step means something else than what we’re used to, but it’s still a telling point.
That said, must disagree with you.
First, Churchill doesn’t exactly have the market cornered on finding DeGaulle to be a difficult, frequently obstinate man.
Second, Churchill had to balance many challenging personalities to maintain the alliance. Imagine trying to build a strategy with Stalin, but FDR and Churchill did, and they did so because they knew that personality differences were trivial compared with the trial they were facing. To be fair to DeGaulle, as he observed, “one does not easily unite a country with 130 varieties of cheese.”
Third, Churchill did everything he could to arm his forces from any source he could. I think if he was made to physically prostrate himself before Henry Ford for more war materiel in 1940, his response would’ve been something to the effect of “your place or mine?” He was a proud and at times, vain, man (Sutherland portrait!!!), but if he had the chance to build a bigger war chest I don’t see him doing anything other than swallowing his pride.
Lastly, I don’t agree with the ambush part. Zelensky came to sign a minerals deal and lost his cool and when he decided to debate JDV. He knew he was on shaky ground with the Trump administration and there was no reason to go off half cocked like that when he had so much to gain—and to lose.
I wonder if you and I might agree, however, that if there was one Churchill in the Oval Office on Friday, it was probably Randolph, in the person of POTUS.

 

[YancyW]

I am a huge Churchill fan, but whenever you read any of his accounts, it is good to look for an opposing view to balance it. ‘The World Crisis’ is an excellent example. He began the war as First Lord of the Admiralty’ and finished as Lord of Munitions. In his works you will quickly realize that none of it was his fault.

And I would add that Churchill was known for his caustic wit and temper. If he had been ambushed like that, I seriously doubt that Trump and Vance would have stood a chance.

So what you are saying is he is no Churchill....

 

[YancyW]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1896339326453338579

This is very relevant stuff, Graham is the absolute leaders of the R's on this issue.

 

[ActionBob]

And get rid of the F-35 and fleet carriers. Because the richest man in the world is also an expert on foreign policy and the application of military power.

Not that I know anything about defense other than as a Nation we need to remain strong and on the cutting edge...

But isn't there a history lesson regarding the Navy and Airpower/carriers? Wasn't the most important and powerful Impliment of Military Strength and projection of power around the Planet the Battleship? And didn't we and others spend an inordinate amount of money and resources building them when we should have been developing aircraft and building carriers?

Is it possible, or perhaps even probable, that we could be to the point where we should be developing other devices of projecting power? Is it possible that someone like Musk may have something in mind or even in the works? Space based? Drones that can patrol without carriers? Hell i don't know.....

Probably on the brink of some Terminator type shit....

 

[rigbymauser]

Further interesting geopolitical news, financial this time.

It's worth noting that the US DOES derive economic benefit from 'those slimy Europeans', even if it is indirect and perhaps hard to see. Certainly I'm no expert in this stuff and I don't claim to understand all the ramifications, but I know enough to know it is there and it is important.

The slimy europeans are right talking about where all the trillions of dollars should go in regards to buy the military hardware. Should we spend the money on europeans arms manufactures alone or should we put the money in the american owned companies?. If we alone put the money in our industry we have send a message to the US we really want to be independed from the US as Trump wants. On the other hand if we are willing to put money in american arms industry we send the message we still see US as an allied. According to an analyst the american arms lobby are begging these days Trump not to piss of europe too much. Most europeans like america and americans in generel but the detest Trump and all his being.

 

[WAB]

So what you are saying is he is no Churchill....

I think he has done a remarkable job leading his country and opposing an invading force. In that he bears great resemblance to Churchill.

I believe Churchill would have fared much better when ambushed with half truths and lies by his greatest ally. I also feel that Trump and Vance embarrassed our nation with their behavior. Why in the world would you attack a visitor and ally with lies and half truths? Watch the video, this was not started by Z, it was started by Trump and Vance, and to what possible purpose?

 

[YancyW]

I think he has done a remarkable job leading his country and opposing an invading force. In that he bears great resemblance to Churchill.

I believe Churchill would have fared much better when ambushed with half truths and lies by his greatest ally. I also feel that Trump and Vance embarrassed our nation with their behavior. Why in the world would you attack a visitor and ally with lies and half truths? Watch the video, this was not started by Z, it was started by Trump and Vance, and to what possible purpose?

I have watched the entire thing, I watched it live. And you know I am no stranger to the WH, my opinion has zero relevance on any of this, but that was the biggest unforced error I have seen in my entire career.

 

[Neophyte]

The slimy europeans are right talking about where all the trillions of dollars should go in regards to buy the military hardware. Should we spend the money on europeans arms manufactures alone or should we put the money in the american owned companies?. If we alone put the money in our industry we have send a message to the US we really want to be independed from the US as Trump wants. On the other hand if we are willing to put money in american arms industry we send the message we still see US as an allied. According to an analyst the american arms lobby are begging these days Trump not to piss of europe too much. Most europeans like america and americans in generel but the detest Trump and all his being.

You guys loved the Kenyan In Chief, obama, because you could take advantage of his put America last character.

You detest President Trump because he puts America first.

 

[WAB]

[emoji[emoji6]][emoji6][emoji6]" data-quote="YancyW" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

I have watched the entire thing, I watched it live. And you know I am no stranger to the WH, my opinion has zero relevance on any of this, but that was the biggest unforced error I have seen in my entire career.

Assuming you’re referencing Z, I don’t disagree. He should not have responded to the attack. However, shame on our leaders for initiating it.

 

[rigbymauser]

You guys loved the Kenyan In Chief, obama, because you could take advantage of his put America last character.

You detest President Trump because he puts America first.

Its gonna be interesting to see if Trump is putting Trump First. With the cluster B personality traits Trump has I doubt if he even care about you.

 

[Red Leg]

First of all, hat tip from a fellow Churchill admirer, you’ve obviously studied the man more than the average bear. He’s one of those characters in history that you can’t help but love to read more and more about, on most any subject, at most any point in his life. I think one of the most fascinating things about Churchill is what he was able to accomplish while battling self doubt to a level that a modern psychologist would classify as depression.
I’ll agree that his opinionated nature did not endear him to all of his peers. As you know, he even switched parties midway through his career largely as a result of being unable to manage himself with the leadership of the Conservative Party at the time. Parliament is different from our American system, so to be out of step means something else than what we’re used to, but it’s still a telling point.
That said, must disagree with you.
First, Churchill doesn’t exactly have the market cornered on finding DeGaulle to be a difficult, frequently obstinate man.
Second, Churchill had to balance many challenging personalities to maintain the alliance. Imagine trying to build a strategy with Stalin, but FDR and Churchill did, and they did so because they knew that personality differences were trivial compared with the trial they were facing. To be fair to DeGaulle, as he observed, “one does not easily unite a country with 130 varieties of cheese.”
Third, Churchill did everything he could to arm his forces from any source he could. I think if he was made to physically prostrate himself before Henry Ford for more war materiel in 1940, his response would’ve been something to the effect of “your place or mine?” He was a proud and at times, vain, man (Sutherland portrait!!!), but if he had the chance to build a bigger war chest I don’t see him doing anything other than swallowing his pride.
Lastly, I don’t agree with the ambush part. Zelensky came to sign a minerals deal and lost his cool and when he decided to debate JDV. He knew he was on shaky ground with the Trump administration and there was no reason to go off half cocked like that when he had so much to gain—and to lose.
I wonder if you and I might agree, however, that if there was one Churchill in the Oval Office on Friday, it was probably Randolph, in the person of POTUS.

Interesting analogy. After all, Randolph did go insane and die from syphilis.

 

[YancyW]

If anyone wants to get some insight into public perception, Mark Halperin had a very good segment on his 2Way show last night. David Burrell was on going over a survey they did over the weekend, the show is over an hour, but if you just watch the first 20 minutes or so, you will get the idea.

 

[Jeff505]

But people already are using renewal energy, all around the world. It’s growing quickly, because it’s such a good idea.

It’s like chocolate. It looks like a bad idea, then you try it. ‘Oh yeah. I’ll have more of that!’ You’ll see.

Wind and solar make sense if there is no other option. In remote African camps it supplements or is used instead of a portable generator. The have pumps to keep water holes filled that work off solar. It makes sense for an individual to have a redundant power source should there be issues with the delivery of electricity to their house. Large scale wind and solar power would not exist in the US were it not for government subsidies. They are not reliable power sources. I am not a believer in the coming apocalypse if we continue to use fossil fuels and I only eat chocolate if is on bacon.

 

[Red Leg]

Not that I know anything about defense other than as a Nation we need to remain strong and on the cutting edge...

But isn't there a history lesson regarding the Navy and Airpower/carriers? Wasn't the most important and powerful Impliment of Military Strength and projection of power around the Planet the Battleship? And didn't we and others spend an inordinate amount of money and resources building them when we should have been developing aircraft and building carriers?

Is it possible, or perhaps even probable, that we could be to the point where we should be developing other devices of projecting power? Is it possible that someone like Musk may have something in mind or even in the works? Space based? Drones that can patrol without carriers? Hell i don't know.....

Probably on the brink of some Terminator type shit....

I have no doubt he has a catalogue of ideas with respect to the application of military power, and I am equally certain that he has zero practical understanding of warfare.