My Early Trump Report Card

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Feb 23, 2017.

  1. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I've listed four areas that I think are important and why I think Trump has missed the boat or partially is hitting the target. Maybe you can add some more. After that, I mentioned two (positive?) results of Trump's election that is impacting the country.

    1. F Foreign Policy
    - A primary reason why I voted for Trump is because he pledged the US would stay away from nation building, attempt diplomacy, fight against Islamic terrorism, and would sever covert ties between the US and jihadists. At this point, I don't see any of that coming to fruition. With the exception of possibly Tillerson and whatever input Trump receives from Bannon, Trump has surrounded himself with neocon establishment figures. The US continues to pour military hardware and troops into Eastern Europe, relations with Russia, China, and Iran continue to deteriorate, Trump's choice for national security adviser Flynn was either fired or forced out, and the US continues to work with and support the Saudi regime, the mother of terrorism.

    So my grades are pretty harsh, but in fairness to Trump, if he really meant what he said about foreign policy changes, he has to find a team willing to implement what he wants to do. From what I can tell, the establishment is almost uniformly opposed to Trump's stated ideology, hence there aren't any experienced generals or diplomats to appoint that thinks in the manner that he and Bannon do.


    2. F Health Care - It is now apparent the Republicans have no real plan to shed Obamacare, and whatever they do put together won't go into effect for at least another year. And whether or not Obamacare is discarded, the biggest problem with health care in general is soaring costs. Health care costs is wiping out wealth at an exponentially increasing pace. I don't see a solution on the horizon.

    I think Trump wants to get Obamacare off of the back of businesses, which is a good objective, but the lingering problem is to get health care costs down and there is no plan. The cartels in the pharmaceutical industry and there hold over Washington via lobbyists is something that isn't being addressed.

    3. B Border/Immigration - This is one area where I've seen progress. From what I've read the border patrols are beefing up, there will be construction of a wall, and legislation will be put forth to stem the tide of refugees into the country.

    Slowing down the flow of illegal entrances and poorly vetted refugees won't solve a lot of societies woes, but at least its a start.

    4. C Ecomomy/Trade - I think globalism is unsustainable on the current path, but Trump's view of bringing back manufacturing and high paying jobs is a pipe dream in a world moving toward automation and robotics.

    I would like to see an alternative tax and money system, though I'm not smart enough to know what that should look like. I heard one proposal of taxing Wall Street (a tax on trading transactions) that could generate billions of dollars in exchange for totally removing the income tax. America did not always have an income tax and seemed to do alright for over 125 years or more without one. But anyway, I don't see anything innovated coming out of Washington or anywhere else that strikes me as a solution for the economy.

    One major change resulting from the Trump Presidency is that the continual controversy has alerted the general public to the degree the media has agendas and uses its power to manipulate the public. I think more people are beginning to question what they are told and search for other avenues to investigate what is reported to be factual.

    Another big change resulting from the election is the clear evidence of how polarized the country has become. As Trump and the establishment continue to battle, I believe this will only intensify. For now, most of the noise comes from radicals and well meaning but sometimes ignorant protesters. People that normally don't get involved will eventually have to take a stand if they realize the tide is going to turn in one direction or another. Interesting times ahead.
     
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    This is because when he was shooting his mouth off about foreign policy during the campaign, he was a scattered mess and had no idea what the hell he was talking about most of the time. I understand why you liked some of what he said, but the guy was full of contradictions. Furthermore, he's flip-flopping. After tearing into the EU and kissing Nigel Farage's *** for the last year, he's now talking about how great the EU is and how supportive he is of it. Link.

    What it sounds like is that he's hearing the pro-military side of things from the generals he has hired and hearing the opposite position from Bannon, who's pitching your style of foreign policy. He seems to be choosing the generals' position, which shouldn't surprise anyone since he ran his campaign heavily on building up our military, which is a bit in conflict with Bannonism.

    The bottom line is that health care reform is a *****. No matter what you do, somebody gets hosed badly. There's a reason why it took several decades for Democrats to even cobble together the ACA, which everybody knows was a half-assed effort - no single payer system, no public option, no meaningful controls on costs, etc. I'm not saying those are good ideas, but they're what Democrats have tended to pitch for years, and despite having the presidency and big majorities in Congress, all they could come up with was the ACA. Pretty pitiful.

    Nevertheless, I'm not sure I understand the urge to say Congress should have done something by now. It took nine months just to get the ACA through the House and about 14 months to get it signed into law. It doesn't bother me that they haven't fixed it in a month. This is a big deal, and another half-assed plan isn't going to be good for anybody.

    I agree, and though I don't agree with every move Trump has made with respect to the media, people are waking up and figuring out what colossal, partisan hacks the media are. That's a good thing, even if Trump's handling of them isn't always very smart.

    By the way, no report card is complete without including the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court. He's a very good pick, and I do give Trump credit for him.
     
  3. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    37 days in, I would have expected so much more:idk:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    I know. Especially with his full cabinet still waiting and some key posts barely a few weeks on the job. What a slacker.

    I mean Herman's offense should've been ready to light it up two weeks after Beck signed on. Such incompetence they're still forming strategy to fit Herman's team philosophy.
     
  5. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Trump's foreign policy objectives are over. He lost to the deep state. This will be another war President and contrary to what Trump asserted - a war against radical Islam waged in cooperation with Russia - the wars will be primarily focused against Russia, Iran, and China. Trump basically turned over foreign policy to the neocons, most likely as a trade-off for allowing him to stay in office.

    The Democrats and liberals will continue to go after Trump, but because he caved in to the Pentagon and Intel establishment he has a chance to survive in office. But not to follow through on what he promised.

    There will be no draining of the swamp, and no redirection in foreign policy. Trump will continue to fight against globalism and bring about a more nationalist oriented agenda in terms of trade, taxation, and security. I'm afraid reforming health care looks almost dead, and Trump's plan to increase wages for the working class is a pipe dream in a time of automation, robotics, and capital mobility.

    My view on Trump's capitulation on foreign policy is summarized by Deez post. We can argue whether or not Trump changed his mind after consulting with the generals or whether Trump was forced to change course more or less as a threat. Flynn's successor is H.R. McMaster. I think the following article sums up where we are headed. I'll copy it below.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  6. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/...trump-relinquishes-control-of-foreign-policy/

    The war party is back in power and the odds of normal relations with Russia have dropped to zero.

    The appointment of Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster to the position of national security adviser indicates that Trump has done an about-face on his most critical foreign policy issue, normalizing relations with Russia. General Michael Flynn– who recently stepped down from the post following allegations of lying to Vice President Mike Pence –was the main proponent of easing tensions with Moscow which is a position that had been enthusiastically embraced by President Donald Trump. But McMaster does not support normalizing relations with Russia, in fact, McMaster sees Russia as a “hostile revisionist power” that “annex(es) territory, intimidates our allies, develops nuclear weapons, and uses proxies under the cover of modernized conventional militaries.” So, what’s going on? Why has Trump put a Moscow-hating hawk like McMaster in a position where he’ll be able to intensify the pressure on Russia, increase the provocations and, very likely, trigger a conflagration between the two nuclear-armed superpowers?

    The appointment of McMaster is an attempt by Trump to placate his enemies in the Intel agencies and foreign policy establishment. Trump is signaling to his adversaries that he will cooperate in carrying out their strategic agenda provided they allow him to finish his term. Trump doesn’t want to end up like Flynn nor does he want to do battle with the all-powerful deep state operatives who can launch one demeaning propaganda blitz after the other followed by years of excruciating investigations leading inevitably to a lengthy and humiliating impeachment that leaves Trump a broken, discredited shambles. That’s not how Trump wants to end his career in politics. He wants to end it on a high note, riding a wave of burgeoning affection and love.

    That’s why he picked McMaster. The neocons love him, the liberal interventionists love him, the media loves him and the entire political establishment loves him. Everyone loves him. He’s the “warrior-scholar” who ‘speaks truth to power’ and writes futuristic books on ‘generation warfare’, ‘information superiority’ and ‘predictive battlespace awareness’ all of which delight his devoted admirers. The downside of McMaster is that he is a hard-boiled militarist with a driving animus towards Russia. Judging by his writing on the topic, I would expect a broader and more lethal conflict to flare up in either Syria or Ukraine as soon as he gets settled in his new job.

    Bottom line: The removal of Flynn has convinced Trump that powerful elements within the national security state have him in their crosshairs. As a result, Trump has relinquished control of foreign policy and handed the whole mess over to gladiator McMaster who will coordinate with Sec-Def General James Mattis on a new strategy to deploy US troops to East Syria and West Iraq to establish a permanent military presence in “occupied” Sunnistan. (The area will also be used for natural gas pipeline corridors connecting Qatar to the EU) The strategy in Ukraine will focus primarily on luring Russia into a long and resource-draining war that will further depress the ailing Russian economy precipitating political instability, social unrest and regime change. That is the hope at least, that Russia’s wars abroad will lead to the ousting of Vladimir Putin.

    Here’s a few clips from a presentation McMaster gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on May 4, 2016. They help to clarify the man’s ominous world view:

    “…what I’d really like to talk to you about is (the) period we’re in right now, a period of increasing risks…risks to our nation, to our allies, and really all of humanity……….

    globally – the situation in connection with U.S. vital interests and security – .. is changing really in a direction that’s going to raise additional challenges to the U.S. and U.S. national security…. what we’re seeing is a shift in geopolitics in a way that imposes great dangers and has elevated the risk of a major international military crisis to the highest level in the last 70 years. A number of scholars are writing about this – Jakub Grygiel and Wess Mitchell in particular in their great recent book “Unquiet Frontier,” where they describe revisionist powers, Russia and China in particular on the Eurasian landmass, that are surrounded by weak states which are now becoming battlegrounds, areas of competition at the far reaches of American power.” (“Harbingers of Future War: Implications for the Army with Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster”, The Center for Strategic and International Studies)

    We have discussed the “pivot to Asia” ad nauseam in this column. McMaster’s comments help to underscore the fact that the struggle to control the “Eurasian landmass”, the center of economic growth for the next century, is at the heart of the US imperial crusade which is now entering a new and more dangerous phase.

    McMaster: “I also think Margaret MacMillan’s great essay written in 2014 making the analogy between 2014 and 1914, and really making the point that geopolitics is back; maybe our – what we might call our holiday from history in the post-Cold War period is over.”

    So in McMaster’s mind, another global conflagration on a par with World War 1 is now in the making. Unlike most people, he sees this as a challenge rather than an apocalyptic event that should be avoided at all cost.

    McMaster: “I think what might have punctuated the end of the post-Cold War period is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. Now, this was – this was not really a new development in terms of Russian aggression. I think you can go back to the denial-of-service attacks on the Baltic states in 2007, certainly the invasion of Georgia in 2008.”

    McMaster is extremely well read and follows the news closely. He knows that Georgia attacked South Ossetia and that Putin –who was at the Olympics at the time– merely responded. Why is McMaster deliberately misleading his audience about the details? And why doesn’t he explain how the elected government of Ukraine was toppled in a CIA-State Department coup? Those facts are readily available to anyone who has seriously researched the incident.

    It seems obvious that McMaster is twisting the truth to make his case against Russia.

    McMaster:

    “…even though it may have been apparent at least since 2008 that Russia was changing its geostrategic behavior … what we’re seeing now is we’ve awakened to, obviously, this threat from Russia, who is waging limited war for limited objectives – annexing Crimea, invading Ukraine – at zero cost, consolidating gains over that territory, and portraying the reaction by us and allies and partners as escalatory.”

    The “threat from Russia”? In other words, NATO is not responsible for its relentless push eastward expanding its grip on all the former Soviet satellites in east Europe, deploying its tanks, heavy artillery, troops and missile systems right onto Russia’s doorstep. No. Instead, Russia should be blamed for its fictitious invasion of Crimea.

    McMaster is basing his argument on fake facts and a convoluted interpretation of events that doesn’t square with reality. Russia is the victim of US-NATO aggression not the perpetrator.

    McMaster then offers a remedy for so called ‘Russian aggression’:
    “…what is required to deter a strong nation that is waging limited war for limited objectives on battlegrounds involving weaker states … is forward deterrence, to be able to ratchet up the cost at the frontier, and to take an approach to deterrence that is consistent with deterrence by denial, convincing your enemy that your enemy is unable to accomplish his objectives at a reasonable cost rather than sort of an offshore balancing approach and the threat of punitive action at long distance later, which we know obviously from – recent experience confirms that that is inadequate.”

    “Forward deterrence”? This needs to be clarified.

    What McMaster is saying, is that, instead of threatening to retaliate at some time in the future, the US should use ‘deterrence by denial’, that is, make it as hard and as costly as possible for Russia to achieve its strategic objectives. By defeating ISIS in Eastern Syria and establishing permanent US military bases, McMaster intends to prevent Russia from restoring Syria’s sovereign borders which is one of the primary goals of the mission. The “safe zones” that Trump has talked about recently, fit perfectly with this same strategy as they undermine Moscow’s efforts to reunify the state and bring the conflict to an end.

    This appears to be the plan that McMaster will pursue as national security adviser. Expect US ground troops to be deployed to Syria as soon as the details are worked out.

    More from McMaster:

    “… what Russia is employing…is a sophisticated strategy…that combines conventional forces as cover for unconventional action, but a much more sophisticated campaign involving the use of criminality and organized crime, and really operating effectively on this battleground of perception and information, and in particular part of a broader effort to sow doubt and conspiracy theories across our alliance. And this effort, I believe, is aimed really not at defensive objectives, but at offensive objectives – to collapse the post-World War II, certainly the post-Cold War, security, economic, and political order in Europe, and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests.”

    The Russian strategy employs “criminality and organized crime” to effect “perception and information”?

    This is just more demonization of Russia intended to make the case for war. Putin does not want a war with the US nor does he want to “collapse the post-World War II order… and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests.”

    Putin is a firm believer in capitalism and still participates in the G-20 and WTO. What Putin objects to is the US using its extraordinary power to topple regimes it doesn’t like spreading death and instability across the planet. That’s what he opposes, the persistent meddling that undermines global security. Is that so unreasonable?

    McMaster:

    “So what do all these conflicts have in common is they’re about the control of territory, people and resources. ….what we need is that synergy between the joint force, where our forces have the capability and the capacity to deter conflict and, if that fails, to resolve conflict in our interest – to protect our security and our vital interests. And that may entail imposing outcomes without the cooperation of the enemy, and that has significant implications for the Army in particular.”

    In other words, we are going to continue to fight for oil and markets (our “vital interests”), we’re going to go it alone if necessary, and if somebody tries to stop us, we’re going to annihilate them.

    Isn’t that what he’s saying?

    You know it is. There’s not going to be normal relations between Russia and the US on McMaster’s watch. The man believes we are in a life or death struggle with an evil enemy that wants to do us harm. That’s not the basis for building peaceful relations. It’s a justification for war.
     
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Mus, he didn't lose to the "deep state." He never knew what his foreign policy actually was, so there wasn't really anything to lose. You're acting as though there was some disciplined foreign policy mindset when the guy was talking out his *** most of the time.

    First of all, he always said he was going to be confrontational with China and Iran. Second, he always spouted a militaristic message. He routinely discussed expanding and rebuilding the military. What part of that led you to believe that he'd disentangle the US from its global leadership position? Yes, he talked nice about your boss and was rhetorically hostile to NATO, but doing what you wanted him to do was always in conflict with confronting China and Iran and with rebuilding the military.
     
  8. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I don't disagree with that. There really is zero consistency with playing up cooperation with Russia while at the same time outright threatening Russia's allies. And that is exactly what Trump did during his campaigning.

    It's possible the "generals" took Trump aside and said something like this:

    Look, this is the way it is. In order to sustain our way of life the United States has to secure access to the resources (mainly oil) in the Middle East and Eurasian land mass, and continue to ensure that the dollar remains the world reserve currency. The emergence of Russia, China, Iran, or any country not only challenges US supremacy, but also threatens perpetual economic growth. Once economic growth stalls, America is over. Forget ISIS. We can cut off their funding whenever we have to. Until the time that becomes paramount, we'll continue to deter Russia, Iran, and China and we will use everything in our disposal including radical Islam.​

    While the concepts I've postulated above are strategically defensible, I don't think they are sustainable. It cost a lot of money to run an empire and when the opponent has a massive nuclear arsenal its dangerous to force your empire down their throat.

    I had hoped that Trump was serious about fighting ISIS, but as I've stated periodically, you can never defeat radical Islam as long as you are allied with Saudi Arabia. It's an impossibility. Even if ISIS were smashed today, Wahhabism is what gave birth to the ideology and something similar would easily take its place. Wahhabism was the small Sunni sect within Saudi Arabia that has metastasized into the dominant world-wide affliction causing instability around the globe and is becoming the dominant Sunni strain.
     
  9. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Ran across an "off-beat" opinion piece this morning that describes what Trump is facing and then projects what might lie ahead if Trump continues to fight against the tide (Link).

    Even though 95% of this board will be in denial or disagreement with the first portion of the article, you may be interested in the latter portion which I've copied below. Go to the linke above if you wish to read the full article.


    .

    .

    .

    Trump – all words, no action, but good words

    In the meantime, Trump has been busy giving speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the “fake news” (which in “Trumpese” means CNN & Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing is that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors and aides who range from the mediocre to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the “DC swamp”.

    Furthermore, by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move – that is how he won the first time around and that is how he might win again.

    The Neocons and the US ‘Deep State’ have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye. If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what could happen next.

    I strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama’s betrayal of all his campaign promises only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the ‘deep state’ was not going to let him take action or threaten him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support of “their guy” against the “******** in DC”. Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people – would millions not flood the streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don’t exactly imagine the cops going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters the latter will easily defeat the former. The “basket of deplorables” are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.

    There are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the people and declares that the “DC swamp” is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me – does Congress really have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don’t mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the creation of USNORTHCOM and the statutory exceptions from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the “DC swamp” can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would remind any “DC swamp” members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that. Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own people?

    Donald Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in “enemy territory” controlled by the “deplorables”, something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.

    This week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he will get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, where the US will be mostly paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beaten Trump – he won’t have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank God for small favors…

    I can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state, but I am not holding my breath.

    Tonight I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war. I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard. Only time will tell.
     
  10. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    This is exactly what I would've told you if I'd previously desired to jump into this highly complicated and assumption/opinion based topic.

    Assuming Trump has bowed down to any faction means one has completely missed the mark on who this man is and what makes him tick.

    It's a monumental challenge for each side if the deep state and Trump declare war. But nothing in Trump's nature will allow bowing to bullying or surrender.

    IMHO, this will become another negotiation and compromises will be made on both sides. And there are signs of this already as mentioned. However, I do not for one second think the deep state is gonna lead DT's foreign policy.

    Sure things will get testy with China, Iran, and Russia. They are the three regional powers we are not allies with. What else would one expect?

    DT spent the election bashing Iran and China. He'll be unforgiving with Iran because he believes in it, as do I. And he'll be no more bullish on China than Obama was.

    Obama was already tough on China, DT will have no choice but to continue with their artificial island nonsense. Anyone thinking China isn't bent on gobbling up territory in a bully fashion hasn't been paying attention. They will never compromise on the islands.

    As for Russia, he's playing it by ear and seeing what he can get. He realizes he can work with them on some things and oppose them on others. Which is the right call, IMO.

    I say let it play out before we start claiming Trump bowed to anyone on any aspect of his vision for our country. Report cards will be more legit when grading actual policies and actions taken. Assumptions are interesting to hear, yet still aren't factual.

    Just because a prez surrounds himself with leaders known to do certain things in their past does not equate to them bucking their new boss and going against his directives to continue their own path.

    Obama was very effective in executing his ridiculous foreign policy. He enabled Iran like few could. I'm sure there was tons of deep state disagreement with that. He minimized ISIS while the military knew he was full of it. When Flynn pushed back he got canned.

    The deep state may have pushed Obama in certain areas he cared less about (non-Muslim Russia and China), but they weren't gonna influence his policies toward Muslim nations no matter what they wanted because he was hell bent on Muslim enabling.

    Obama even scrubbed the intelligence community from classifying potential terrorists in the US as Muslim. To assume Trump can't get hold of the deep state and be as powerful over them as Obama is naively underestimating this man when he means business.

    It is kind of amusing how many times I've heard Trump was cornered or doomed these last many months. And every time he comes out smiling when he wins against all odds.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2017
  11. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I would say Trump has already abdicated his foreign policy to the deep State. Just look at what he's surrounded himself with. Neocons and warmongers. Basically the same people that have been in charge since post 9-11. But let's let that go for the time being and move on the economy and health care.

    Today, Trump hinted at a massive infrastructure project which no doubt would cost hundreds of billions of dollars but would also put people to work. But, he also admitted there won't be any tax reform until the Obamacare replacement gets finished. Trump has acknowledged that the health care program is complex and likely won't be implemented until next year. Hence the tax reform package won't be enacted until at least next year and without that, neither will the infrastructure program (Link).

    In the near future, Trump plans to beef up military spending by $54 billion, but has pledged not to make cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Instead he wishes to pay for the cuts by trimming the Department of Education and other federal programs. The problem with that is that not only will Democrats fight him, Paul Ryan is the House Speaker and has a different agenda (Link).

    So Trump has already had his *** kicked by the Pentagon and Intel portion of the Deep State, and now it appears he will get his *** kicked by Congress, led by his own Party leaders. With each battle, DC insiders will leak negative tidbits to the media in order to sway public opinion against Trump.

    I've given him poor grades, but everything isn't necessary Trump's fault. The deck is stacked against him.
     
  12. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    It's been barely over a month and the cabinet is still not in place. No *** has been kicked. :rolleyes1:

    You assume once his policies unfold he will have had his *** kicked. We'll see.

    So far nothing he's stating deviates much from his campaign promises. The only variations have to do with time and we still aren't sure how much that will have changed until policies are actually enacted.

    In the past candidates have made promises and said "on Day One" like clockwork. And they broke many promises, much less the time frame of it.

    We shall see what the actual policies look like when they come out and if his *** legitimately got kicked. Keep underestimating him, it's amusing.
     
  13. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
     
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    That depends on which promises. He was an incoherent mess of contradictions on foreign policy. One could have gotten whatever message one wanted to get from his rhetoric. He said NATO was obsolete, and while he bashed many world leaders, he had nothing but eulogy for Vladimir Putin. He talked about "draining the swamp" and scaling back our role in the world. He celebrated Brexit and ridiculed the EU. He put Steve Bannon on the NSC and made Michael Flynn his National Security Advisor. Obviously that's all going to please a Russophile like Musburger who wants to see opportunities for Russia to reassert itself as it's doing in Syria. However, he sent people out to say how committed he is to NATO, talked about dramatic military buildups, and promised to listen to the top generals. That's all in conflict with everything Musburger liked.

    Personally, I like that he's flip flopping on the nutty things he said, but if you're a guy like Musburger and liked the nutty things, he's going to be a disappointment. Of course, the hope for Musburger has to be that if he flip flopped once, he might flip flop again. However, he has already put forth a defense budget with a significant increase, and undoubtedly some of that will be used to partially reverse the US military drawdown that has been happening in Europe fur the last several years and has already said he's committed to greater missile defense (all of which strengthens NATO). He's putting his money where his "establishment mouth" was and largely telling the "Pat Buchanan/Vladimir Putin/Musburger mouth" to screw off.

    To be clear, I think this is a good thing. Even though we have agreement on some issues, I mostly think Musburger is a propaganda-spouting bullshitter when it comes to Russia and Europe. However, even he has a right to a President who doesn't blatantly lie to him.
     
  15. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    What's "nutty" is our imperial foreign policy which is belligerent, wasteful, fraught with corruption, and fiscally unsustainable. We have more and more multi-billion dollar projects that don't work or are obsolete by the time they come into service. We disregard international law, flaunt or disdain for it, and make enemies as a result. Deez, your view is the nutty one.
     
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    There's plenty to criticize in our foreign policy and plenty of screwups, and I do criticize it. However, the narrative you pitch is usually devoid of context and laughably one-sided. It is possible for both you and the neocons to be wrong for different reasons and to different degrees.
    Keep in mind that though I sound like a neocon next to you, I'm not a neocon. In fact, I'm pretty critical of neocons. I'm just not foolish enough to advocate a unilateral disarmament and giving away the global position that has mostly served the US and the world well - not perfectly but pretty well when compared to how things were before we held that position and how they'd likely be if we gave it up. I don't expect you to agree with that. Your loyalty lies elsewhere, and our position does not on the whole benefit the beneficiary of your loyalty, though it does in some respects.
     
  17. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I wish you wouldn't make up ridiculous statements and then attribute them to me. Unilateral disarmament? When did I ever suggest such nonsense? Pulling back our arsenal from the Russian borders isn't the same thing as unilateral disarmament.

    Our global position that has "served us and the world well" is the current neoliberal policy that has deindustrialized our country, enriched the bankers and corporate executives, while at the same time erode the middle class and help trigger the schisms in the country we see today. Our projection of military power all over the globe isn't designed to protect the country, but rather to protect the system in place which benefits the few. That system is failing and people like you continue wanting to double down to prop it up. I'm not a Trump fan, but rather see him as a catalyst do burn down something that can't be reformed. Perhaps with a little luck, we might then start anew and create a healthy society again.
     
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    That's a warped and simplistic view of things. Nevertheless, before our position, "great power" wars that killed people by the hundreds of thousands and millions were the norm and the way of life for many. You're a fool if you think that model wouldn't return if it could. Do you think China would just leave Taiwan alone if it didn't have to? Do you think North Korea wouldn't invade South Korea tomorrow if they didn't think we'd stop them? Do you think that Muslims who have been butchering people in the Middle East and Africa for centuries and who used to invade Europe would suddenly turn into peaceful people if we weren't involved? And I know you think Putin is the reincarnation of Christ, but suppose a less Christ-like figure came to power in Russia. You think they'd certainly leave their neighbors alone for eternity? The world is messy, but it can get a lot messier and deadlier. It's a bastion of tranquility by historic standards.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    First of all, the relation between China and Taiwan should not be any of our business, but if you want to look at the history, it was British, and later US imperialism that used a drug trade to impoverish China and ultimately lead to the Chinese revolution. As far as your assertion that US militarization is a tool for peace, that is absurd. More people have died as a result of US military policy since 2001, either from direct action or proxy support, than from any other source. The US of course isn't the sole cause of war, but it certainly is the instigator more often than not. Tools we use include color revolutions, lies such as the accusations about Iraqs WMD, and arms sales to belligerent regimes such as Saudi Arabia. As far as mass killing, do you not think the lies about Russian invasions, and blatant hostility toward a nuclear power don't increase chances for a massive killing of the human race. Deez, have you lost your mind?
     
  20. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Wrong. US was never involved in the opium trade in China. The British cut back and then stopped but it was picked up by the Japanese. Before Peal Harbor, US was leading the effort to end the treaty ports in China when negotiating an end of the Sino-Japanese war. Finally, the Chinese went communist after the treatment by the Japanese. British and American mercantilism was not the cause.
     
  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    That could be said of almost any security agreement or treaty between countries. Pick on the US if you want, but virtually no major power hasn't done this at some point yet I never hear you discuss it. Furthermore, it's nothing to be ashamed of. If two nations want to have a security agreement or a trade agreement, that's their business.

    Also, it's somewhat amusing, because the US' willingness to get involved in something that some thought was "none of our business" is the only reason your boss is even alive today to flex his nuts, criticize the US for being involved in areas that are none of our business, or to pay internet trolls to help pitch his agenda. If the US hadn't provided massive amounts of aid to the Soviet Union and then entered the War and forced Germany into a two-front war, the Soviet Union would almost surely have lost the war. Putin's father worked for the NKVD. The Nazis wouldn't have been kind to him. If Putin was lucky, his dad may have lived and Putin would be working as a slave laborer somewhere in the Greater German Reich today and subsisting on a couple slices of bread and a glass of water per day.

    This is such nonsense. Nobody impoverished China. You make it sound like this was some great, peaceful country with a thriving middle class until the "white man" came in and ruined it. Their elites and warlords had money and power, but your average Chinese person was broke-*** poor and still would be without Western trade. And of course, if the US hadn't meddled in something that was none of their business, they'd probably still be occupied by the much more advanced Japanese.

    The US military has been used for nefarious reasons. I don't deny that, but what you miss is context and perspective. There has never been a global power that exploited its relative military and economic power less than the US has. For example, we don't have buy oil from anybody. We have a colossal nuclear arsenal. Within about 3 hours, we could blow the entire Middle East off the map and steal it anytime we want and then dare anybody to complain. Instead, we actually pay for it and dump trillions of dollars onto them. By superpower standards, we're pretty decent.

    And look how we treat our enemies. We actually let them live, and when they surrender to us, we protect them and rebuild their economies. Do you think Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin would be so nice if they were in our shoes? Hell, the fact that we take any flack from North Korea should tell you something. We could stomp that fat turd anytime we want and with little to no consequence. They have no economic power, and they have no real allies. America haters like you around the world would self-righteously whine for political gain, but nobody would give enough of a crap to interfere or take any real action, including China.

    By the way, I wouldn't want us to behave like that. I like living in a world of order, and I don't think it's right to kick the **** out of somebody just because we can for the same reason I wouldn't go hang around schools beating 7-year-olds for their lunch money. It's not right. However, when guys like you start whining about what monsters we are, a little perspective is in order.

    Yeah, it also stops a lot of wars. That's what you miss. We weren't a peaceful world before, and we wouldn't be a peaceful world if the US was isolationist, militarily weak, or unassertive. Wars would happen like they did before WWII, but they'd involve major powers and therefore nuclear weapons - lots of dead people.

    Of course, I don't buy your narrative on this. You don't cower before somebody just because they have nuclear weapons. That's why Putin doesn't cower to the United States. I'd never support a first strike on Russia, but would I hold back on defending NATO allies just because he doesn't like it? No. We didn't do that with he Soviet Union. Why should we do it with the much weaker Russian Federation? Besides, you think Putin's the epitome of morality and virtue and that he'd never hurt anybody who didn't hurt him first because he's so Christ-like. I don't think he's Hitler like some do. I think he's more like Stalin. I'd work with him to stop a more imminent threat like ISIS, but I don't trust him and sure as hell wouldn't let my guard down around him.

    Also, explain to me again your rational for why there wasn't a Russian invasion. Do you deny that the Russian military entered the Ukraine, or do you acknowledge that they did enter but call their operations something else?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Also, explain to me again your rational for why there wasn't a Russian invasion. Do you deny that the Russian military entered the Ukraine, or do you acknowledge that they did enter but call their operations something else?

    I assume you are talking about Crimea. First of all, It wasn't necessary to enter Crimea because the Russians already had a sizeable base. Did the Russians leave the base and come to the assistance of Crimea when asked?
    Of course. Its also true that close to 50% of the Ukrainian armed forces inside Crimea defected to the Crimean side (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...g-troop-withdrawal-from-Crimea/5181395677491/).

    Keep in mind many Crimeans were removed from a bus, attacked and murdered on their way back to Crimea from Kiev following the events in Kiev. Later, in Odessa, dozens of pro-Russian Ukrainians were murdered in a fire.

    Most of your post was defending immoral actions on the grounds they are relatively less immoral than brutal actions taken by empires in the past. We are so powerful we could simply exterminate a civilization and take their resources, but since we don't go that far, we should admire the fact we merely implant puppets and arrange to set up favorable market conditions for our oligarchs to exploit.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  23. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    For the sake of discussion, I'll assume that all Russian military personnel involved were from that base, though I doubt that either of us know that to be true. The US has an Army base in Wiesbaden, Germany. However, if those troops left the base and started engaging in combat against Germany, it would be considered an invasion and an act of war. The fact that Russia had a base there doesn't make it any less of an invasion.

    The key question is who asked Russians to leave the base. Was it an official request from the Ukrainian government? If it was, then it's not an invasion. However, if it was requested by anybody else, then it still was. Again, only Chancellor Merkel has the authority to ask US troops to leave the base, engage in combat, and have it not be an invasion of Germany. (Of course, she cannot order them to do it, but she could make the request, and the Commander in Chief could authorize it.)

    If it was Crimean officials, it was still an invasion. They don't speak for the Ukrainian government. Going back to the US troops, if the Bürgermeister of Wiesbaden or the Minister-President of Hessen ask them to leave the base and engage in combat, it would still be an invasion. If it was Yanukovych after he was in exile, it was still an invasion. If Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia (the living heir to Kaiser Wilhelm II) claimed that the current regime in Berlin was illegitimate and that he was the true leader of Germany and asked the US to deploy its troops in Germany and they did so, it would still be an invasion. While in exile, Yanukovych wouldn't have that authority any more than Prince Georg would.

    If it wasn't an official request by the Ukrainian government, you can still make the case that it was a justifiable invasion. Plenty of invasions are. Even the horrible USA launched the D-Day invasion. Your Russian heroes (and I'm not being sarcastic - they were heroes and great soldiers) invaded Germany. Both were greatly justified. However, you can't make the case that it wasn't an invasion at all.

    Actually, it's not a defense. There's room to criticize US policy on a case by case basis. I do it from time to time myself. (See Syria. See Iraq.) It's perspective and proportionality. There's a difference.

    When I was 9 years old, I forced open the window to the teacher's lounge at my school, climbed in, and stole a Welch's grape soda from the refrigerator. (I didn't get caught.) It would be perfectly fair to condemn my actions. In fact, unlike the US actions you vitriolically condemn, it was utterly indefensible by any even alleged rationale. There was absolutely no justification or higher purpose for it. It was an unmitigated, 100 percent self-serving act of soda theft committed in cold blood and with the most callous of intentions. Some teacher bought that soda with her hard-earned money and wasn't going to have that soda when she need it, and I didn't give a rat's ***.

    I committed my depraved act on a Saturday afternoon. Suppose on Monday morning, somebody entered the school, raped a couple of the teachers, shot a few people, and then left with $50,000 worth of equipment. Do you think the mourning and moral condemnation would be over the soda theft? My guess is that it wouldn't be. It's not because the soda theft was any more right than it would have been had there been no subsequent incident. It's because of perspective and proportionality. I caused a teacher some mild aggravation because of some mild selfishness. The other guy caused death, horrific emotional trauma, the destruction of families, and caused major financial damage because of spectacular evil. It's the same reason why jaywalking might get you a $10 fine, and shooting a police officer will get you the death penalty. They're both wrong, but the difference matters a lot.
     
  24. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Who asked Russia to protect the citizens? One of the requests might have come from the Ukraine President; the legitimately elected one that is (Yanukovich) who had fled the country. Of course the request wasn't from "Yats" the acting President who was hand-picked by the US State Department to take over prior to the coup.

    Comparing stealing a soda pop to the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians isn't worthy of a response.
     
  25. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Then it was an invasion.

    That's only the case if you don't get the point. It doesn't have to be the soda example. It could be DWI, burglary of a home, or something more serious. I suspect that you do get the point but that you don't have a justification.

    By the way, on a different note, Yanukovych's opponent in his election - kinda sexy. I'm sure you hate her guts, but come on. She ain't bad.

    [​IMG]
     
  26. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Assad also asked Russia to lend military support. I guess by your reasoning, that's an invasion. The US now has military personnel on Syrian soil embedded with the Kurds. Syria objects and didn't request this. Does this constitute an invasion in your mind or perhaps not, since the US is exceptional?
     
  27. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You're not following. Assad is the official president of Syria. He has the authority to request Russian military support. That's not an invasion.

    If they're in combat and doing it against the government's wishes, then yes it is. It's obviously a small scale, but yes, it's an invasion.

    Our difference is that you think there's some magic, inherent evil to something being an "invasion." There isn't. Some invasions are justifiable. Some of them are not, but on the superficial level an invasion "sounds bad," so you don't like to use the term when referring to Russian troops entering Ukraine.
     
  28. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    If you wish to classify Russian military involvement in Crimea as an invasion, fine. It was justified in my mind because A) it was in defense of civilians and B) it was needed to protect Russian interests. Call it invasion if what happened fits your definition.

    The involvement/invasion of US personnel in Syria serves the interest of the US State Department and obviously the majority of the US government, but it isn't sanctioned by Congress, and by my estimate is illegal and does not serve the interests of the United States.
     
  29. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    What a speech (A+)...Trump hasn't surrendered sh*t to the deep state and has Congress right where he wants them. :hookem:
     
  30. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I'd say Trump bought himself time and gained more goodwill from the public, but until he gets the FBI under control and Sessions gets moving on investigations and prosecutions in order to root out enemies and corruption, he can't get anything accomplished.
     

Share This Page