Neonazis Love Trumps uncomdemnation

[Nitro Express]

Had she been elected, Congressional investigations over The Clinton Foundation and everything else under the sun would have taken off immediately.

However, if the Congressional Republicans approached those hypothetical investigations with the same competency as they did with the "repeal and replace" health insurance reform, Hillary would have had little to worry about.

I mean, 7 years to get their shit together, they control all three branches of government and they can't even convincingly explain their strategy, rollout, funding/financing and the basic math of it in a way that convinced enough people it would be worth supporting? McConnell couldn't even get the fucking VOTES in line? Some "Master of the Senate"

Thankfully these republicans are proving to be as inept, disorganized and dysfunctional as the democrats: if either faction actually had their shit halfway together, they could possibly do us all some real damage.

Most of the US Congress are crooks. There really is no difference regarding the Dems and Reps as far as corruption goes. I don't know if both parties or even the federal government will survive the corruption and scandals. It really has become a joke. We are witnessing devolution in progress.

[Seshmeister]

You really need campaign spending limits. It's surprising that the people in there at the moment don't get tired of begging for money 6 hours a day and vote for it, wouldn't you?

The fact they don't shows that deep down they know that the one real skill they have over potential opponents is that they are better at raising money.

[Terry]

Most of the US Congress are crooks. There really is no difference regarding the Dems and Reps as far as corruption goes. I don't know if both parties or even the federal government will survive the corruption and scandals. It really has become a joke. We are witnessing devolution in progress.

In practical terms, far as legislation goes, neither major political party in the US has a monopoly on wisdom - nor the interests of the non-moneyed classes at heart - as far as I can see.

In the end, it tracks back to what Sesh said about campaign spending limits, along with the harm Citizens v. United did in legalizing the opening of the financial floodgates: you're loyal to the God that feeds you. If I were a politician and my principal/majority donors were Wall Street financial houses or ideologue billionaires like the Koch brothers, you'd better believe I'd make sure their wants and desires were taken care of before everyone else's.

When this whole recent idea of Kid Rock running for the Senate was floated...if it is just a publicity stunt on Rock's part or not, when I take a look at the bulk of people in Congress these days, I'm not seeing or hearing The Astounding Wisdom Of Elected Democracy in action. What I'm seeing largely consists of a bunch of empty suits with law degrees in their background who managed to cobble together victories in no small part because voter apathy is rampant, where winning 55% percent of the vote in any given race (when only 60% of those who could vote actually turned out to do so) can now be called a 'mandate' and the objective of the elected official is to live high on the hog off of the perks of the public teat as long as he/she can, while making sure to grease the donor class with the laws they want passed so after the career in elected politics ends the politician can get a safe landing as a lobbysit or sit on multiple corporate boards or get a job with the televised pundit class...or all three...and then go on to make some REAL big money.

Put another way, I'm not exactly overwhelmed with a sense of awe when I see McConnell, Ryan, Rubio and the like on television. EVen Senators I would tend to agree with more ideologically such as Warren and Sanders have been utterly ineffective when it comes to actually implementing the ideas they so boldly and passionately speak of.

In a way, though, it's just a reflection of where we are as a nation. One way or the other, we usually end up getting the kind of democracy we deserve.

[Seshmeister]

I think the US and the UK have two of the shittiest systems of democracy because we were early adopters.

Hardly anyone else has these stupid first past the post, pretty much 2 party systems. Everyone else learned from our mistakes and did it better...

[Terry]

Yes, but at least your Prime Minister has to have enough wits to stand up to Question Time and a thorough grilling on a semi-frequent basis.

Frankly, when I look at such Presidents as Ford, Reagan, GW Bush and Trump, I don't think any of those guys would have lasted (or currently would last) ten seconds in that type of environment, where they can't just read off a teleprompter or take non-threatening questions from the careerists of the White House Press Corps. Where you actually have to KNOW in some detail policy issues and actually know your shit beyond campaign platitudes, otherwise you're going to be eviscerated by the inquiries.

[Terry]

That's perhaps the oddest thing about Trump, to me, in that he personally hasn't given near the amount of press conferences I thought he would have, being that he loves the sound of his own voice. Although maybe after the last round of them last week, perhaps it's better if he didn't...

[Va Beach VH Fan]

That's perhaps the oddest thing about Trump, to me, in that he personally hasn't given near the amount of press conferences I thought he would have, being that he loves the sound of his own voice. Although maybe after the last round of them last week, perhaps it's better if he didn't...

He's too ignorant about the issues to do press conferences with any regularity....

He can't give even a high level answer about Afghanistan, or Syria, or health care, or tax reform, or much anything else....

Plus the fact that the last couple of times he's taken questions, it's quickly turned into a circus, in which he's not good at defending himself....

[Seshmeister]

It was interesting listening to Penn Jillette who spent literally more than 100 hours with Trump speak about it again last week on his podcast, he hated Hilary, is a libertarian and wasn't a fan of GW either.

He said that if you went into a shoe shop with GW Bush he would probably be the smartest guy in the room, Trump wouldn't.

I kind of object to that analogy because I think I'm smarter than GW but his point was more that GW was only dumb by president standards, Trump is just kind of dumb in general.

Maybe a better way of thinking about it is he is that 70 year old uncle who gets all his info from Fox TV and thinks he knows everything. Corners you at family gatherings and is sometimes kind of funny right up until the point he says something about n*****s.

[Terry]

It was interesting listening to Penn Jillette who spent literally more than 100 hours with Trump speak about it again last week on his podcast, hates Hilary is a libertarian and wasn't a fan if GW either.

He said that if you went into a shoe shop with GW Bush he would probably be the smartest guy in the room, Trump wouldn't.

I kind of object to that analogy because I think I'm smarter than GW but his point was more that GW was only dumb by president standards, Trump is just kind of dumb in general.

Maybe a better way of thinking about it is he is that 70 year old uncle who gets all his info from Fox TV and thinks he knows everything. Corners you at family gatherings and is sometimes kind of funny right up until the point he says something about n*****s.

I never bought into the notion that W Bush was a dumbass.

Intentionally simplistic, mildy dyslexic and willfully ignorant? Yes. Not what I would call stupid, though.

Trump I think just views everything through the Darwinist prism he was taught to believe in.

I'm sure Trump really thinks America's greatest days were the two decades following World War II, when America basically ruled the world, and America was ruled by white men (and women and minorities largely knew 'their place'). When things like climate change, economic inequality and social justice were either non-factors or easily relegated to the margins of the national conversation. I'm equally sure Trump thinks he can somehow roll back the clock to that period.

The problem is that Trump hasn't realized those conditions immediately following World War II no longer exist and aren't going to be replicated. America isn't the country it was back then, and the world isn't what it was back then, either. His hardcore followers/voters haven't realized this, either.

You combine all of this with Trump's other longstanding belief that facades, images and appearances can forever cloak realities, you've got a man who is unsuited to lead this country in these times. I also think he has a lack of ability to focus and a lack of ability to think about detailed solutions to complex problems beyond how those problems and solutions directly (and solely) affect him.

Those characteristics matter far beyond his personal demeanor, his boorishness, lack of class and general assholishness. These things are just symptoms which manifest themselves as the result of deeper intellectual and emotional flaws.

I mean, does it really matter if Mike Pence's character traits are more tolerable than those of Trumps if Pence reaches the same conclusions about various political/social/economic/environmental issues that Trump has? Like, all of that is acceptable because Mike Pence is a loudly self-proclaimed Christian who wouldn't dream of grabbing a woman other than his wife by the pussy (and even with his wife strictly for the purposes of procreation within the sanctity of heterosexual, church-recognized marriage)?

[Nitro Express]

Homosexuality actually plays a big component in Nazism. Some times repressed, sometimes celebrated as some Spartan throwback of child rape and prison prostitution...

Meet Ernst Rohm:



https://daily.jstor.org/ernst-rohm-t...king-gay-nazi/

I never thought about this before but what you are implying is Sammy Hagar is a Nazi.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

I never bought into the notion that W Bush was a dumbass.

Intentionally simplistic, mildy dyslexic and willfully ignorant? Yes. Not what I would call stupid, though.

I would agree with that. I think simplistic really nails it.

In fact, in reference to what he will go to his grave with the first line of his obituary, the war in Iraq, and the genned-up bullshit "evidence" that came leading up to it, came as a result of Saddam's attempted assassination of Daddy Bush in 1993. 9/11 simply gave him the opportunity to pull it off.

[Terry]

I would agree with that. I think simplistic really nails it.

In fact, in reference to what he will go to his grave with the first line of his obituary, the war in Iraq, and the genned-up bullshit "evidence" that came leading up to it, came as a result of Saddam's attempted assassination of Daddy Bush in 1993. 9/11 simply gave him the opportunity to pull it off.

Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton and the rest of the neo-con lot - under the auspices of Cheney - that came back into government after the Supreme Court appointment of W to the presidency in December of 2000...none of those guys in 1991 thought HW Bush's response re: Iraq was adequate. Those guys all believed that the US should have toppled Hussein in the first Gulf War. They all also believed that a US-occupied/controlled Iraq represented what could be a foothold for US strategic interests in the region.

I mean, they were - I think - true believers about this stuff. There wasn't much cynicism in their circles about this. They bought into their own hype that it would be fairly easy, wouldn't require a lot of boots on the ground because the superior US air power and missile capabilities would bring Iraq to heel with relative ease, that reconciling the multiple ethnic factions within Iraq wouldn't be problematic...the neo-cons were blinded by their own sense of intellect and hubris over what they thought was the righteousness of the US cause with regard to Iraq.

All of that momentum was being ramped up from January of 2001 up until September 11th of the same year by those guys. W went along with all of it, and frankly so did the American media. The intelligence about Iraq's weapons capacity, capabilities and intent was cooked in the sense that the threats were cherry-picked and grossly exaggerated by Cheney and his gang. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 made all of this easy to swallow by the bulk of the American public.

All of these neo-cons weren't really ready to fight an asymmetrical war with terrorists, which is certainly what the 9/11 attacks were. They were more comfortable with the notion of fighting a conventional war with a nation state. Because fighting something porous or amorphous like a terrorist organization that isn't tethered to a specific region is much more difficult: how can you ever be sure you've eradicated all the terrorist cells, or that for every one terrorist you're killing you're not breeding two more? Plus, if you're going to fight a quiet war using subtle means, it requires not boasting about success and being prepared to fight that fight for an indefinite period of time.

It's distressing that Trump is now willing to go down into the Afghanistan rabbit hole, but in a way he has no choice. Not to do so would leave him open to claims of being insufficient in terms of combating terrorists, but the idea of there being a quantifiable goal that can actually be eventually reached...I don't see it. The Gulf War Part 2 was an instance of trying to create a war with such a goal. The result hasn't been a stabilization of Iraq, nor has it been an eradication of terrorism.

Unfortunately, the only lesson America has learned from its mistakes is how to repeat them perfectly again and again.

[Seshmeister]

I would agree with that. I think simplistic really nails it.

In fact, in reference to what he will go to his grave with the first line of his obituary, the war in Iraq, and the genned-up bullshit "evidence" that came leading up to it, came as a result of Saddam's attempted assassination of Daddy Bush in 1993. 9/11 simply gave him the opportunity to pull it off.

Someone asked him what he thought his legacy would be and he answered 'who cares we'll be dead'.

[Nitro Express]

Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton and the rest of the neo-con lot - under the auspices of Cheney - that came back into government after the Supreme Court appointment of W to the presidency in December of 2000...none of those guys in 1991 thought HW Bush's response re: Iraq was adequate. Those guys all believed that the US should have toppled Hussein in the first Gulf War. They all also believed that a US-occupied/controlled Iraq represented what could be a foothold for US strategic interests in the region.

I mean, they were - I think - true believers about this stuff. There wasn't much cynicism in their circles about this. They bought into their own hype that it would be fairly easy, wouldn't require a lot of boots on the ground because the superior US air power and missile capabilities would bring Iraq to heel with relative ease, that reconciling the multiple ethnic factions within Iraq wouldn't be problematic...the neo-cons were blinded by their own sense of intellect and hubris over what they thought was the righteousness of the US cause with regard to Iraq.

All of that momentum was being ramped up from January of 2001 up until September 11th of the same year by those guys. W went along with all of it, and frankly so did the American media. The intelligence about Iraq's weapons capacity, capabilities and intent was cooked in the sense that the threats were cherry-picked and grossly exaggerated by Cheney and his gang. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 made all of this easy to swallow by the bulk of the American public.

All of these neo-cons weren't really ready to fight an asymmetrical war with terrorists, which is certainly what the 9/11 attacks were. They were more comfortable with the notion of fighting a conventional war with a nation state. Because fighting something porous or amorphous like a terrorist organization that isn't tethered to a specific region is much more difficult: how can you ever be sure you've eradicated all the terrorist cells, or that for every one terrorist you're killing you're not breeding two more? Plus, if you're going to fight a quiet war using subtle means, it requires not boasting about success and being prepared to fight that fight for an indefinite period of time.

It's distressing that Trump is now willing to go down into the Afghanistan rabbit hole, but in a way he has no choice. Not to do so would leave him open to claims of being insufficient in terms of combating terrorists, but the idea of there being a quantifiable goal that can actually be eventually reached...I don't see it. The Gulf War Part 2 was an instance of trying to create a war with such a goal. The result hasn't been a stabilization of Iraq, nor has it been an eradication of terrorism.

Unfortunately, the only lesson America has learned from its mistakes is how to repeat them perfectly again and again.

Trump deploying more troops to Afghanistan is breaking his promise to get us out of unnecessary deployments. Everyone knows we don't need to be over there and it's gone on for 18 years. You are spot on about the neocons. This is all about making money. Eisenhower warned this kind of stuff would happen.

[Terry]

Trump deploying more troops to Afghanistan is breaking his promise to get us out of unnecessary deployments. Everyone knows we don't need to be over there and it's gone on for 18 years. You are spot on about the neocons. This is all about making money. Eisenhower warned this kind of stuff would happen.

Trump's inclination - one of the few things he was consistent about in his comments for the last decade or so - was that Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes. Not just in terms of the mechanics of how those conflicts were pursued, but the total rationale for going in. Same with Libya, Syria, etc.

Thus, his recent speech was...whatever the value of the reportage that Trump was disinclined to re-engage in Afghanistan prior to meeting with the generals, if that was truthful or not or just a planted story to provide cover for Trump in terms of allocating possible future blame ("I didn't want to put more troops in, but the generals said they could win...Generals are Bad!")...it was just disheartening to see him decide to re-up the ante in Afghanistan in terms of conventional forces and speak the teleprompter text that he expected to "win" in Afghanistan.

As far as Eisenhower and the military-industrial complex, you have roughly 25% of GDP funding the military: it's only natural to follow that you're going to have to utilize the military in some fashion to justify the perpetuation of conventional weapons manufacturing and maintaining armed forces personnel. Otherwise, why spend so much money? Eisenhower was also pretty spot-on about missile defense systems, in that once you have reached the capability of essentially destroying the entire planet, any missiles built beyond that point are just a waste: once you have a sufficient deterrent, producing arms beyond that doesn't make the deterrent any stronger. Now, we are looking at spending a trillion dollars to overhaul, modernize and upgrade our nuclear capability. All for weapons that nobody short of the insane wants to see used...ever. It's crazy on the face of it and crazy through and through, despite what the usual cast of Pentagon-advocating talking heads will say in terms of the necessity of it (as they have been for 50 years now).