Will Trump be Re-elected?

[Kbg]

@moda... love the irony, railing against the press, the Don, Hillary and the previous three moron Republican presidents...and yet where are his narratives coming from?

Personally, I have no personal knowledge of any President in my lifetime. I do know how to spot a narrative being created and continued by their partisans. On the positive side...

Kennedy and Reagan were very good at inspiring Americans and asking us to strive to be our better selves and a better country.

Johnson did more than any single President behind Lincoln to actually advance civil rights

Nixon was pretty good at navigating the bi-polar world that existed at the time

Ford knew job 1 for his tenure was healing a very divided country and filled that role well

I do think Carter was a man of compassion and integrity

Bush 1 was a thoughtful statesman who surrounded himself with probably the best cabinet in my lifetime

Clinton was pretty good at economics and actually did bring the federal deficit down

Bush 2 was fundamentally a very good person and did many good things at an individual/family level that were never advertised and he never wanted them advertised...and he was smart enough to pick probably the best Fed Chairman in history.

Obama had the most rational foreign policy of any US President since Eisenhower and also actually brought the federal deficit down

Trump has been the first president in my life who actually does challenge the status quo and is not afraid to gore some very large oxes that probably need goring.

With regard to intelligence, everyone of them were smart enough to navigate and compete successfully enough to win both their party nomination and the presidency. As a minimum, they all made the right choices to get there and were smart enough to pick the team that helped them win. Everything I’ve ever read or watched about this process indicates it is exceedingly difficult on many levels financial, personal, family, organizational, communicative, and requires the ability to identify and campaign on those issues that motivate voters to pull the lever for them at that particular time in history.

[dualstow]

Nice to see some positivity, anyway.

[Kbg]

Tough crowd.

To quote Theodore Roosevelt:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

[limapsp]

* looking at the crystal ball *
I would say no. Although during the last elections I was even more sure that this would not happen under any circumstances. How wrong I was! I do not know whether it is funny or scary.
And again, all the media will return to the endless and pointless discussion of Russiagate instead of discussing his real sins and politics while US is becoming the world's largest offshore financial centre. Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman. He and his real estate empire have their own interest in everything. He is a showman.

[dualstow]

Tough crowd.

To quote Theodore Roosevelt:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Yes!

[Kriegsspiel]

Any other Victor Davis Hanson fans here? He has a new book out called "The Case for Trump" discussing why Trump should get re-elected. I heard him interviewed on a podcast yesterday discussing the book. He seems like a thoughtful conservative. He doesn't like Trump's bombast, but he likes a lot of his policies. He lives in a farming region that could be described as low-rent (about 15 miles from me, who also lives in a low-rent area), and he seems to understand the frustrations of the lower class voters who elected Trump.

Hanson has his own podcast called The Classicist if anyone is interested.

Just read it. Good book, especially the Ancien Regime chapter.

[moda0306]

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/ ... yemen.html

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump repeatedly suggested that Saudi Arabia had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks — and that the United States should stop wasting resources on bloody Middle Eastern wars that have no real connection to our national interest.

As president, Trump just vetoed a congressional resolution that would have ended U.S. support for a Saudi war in Yemen that has likely claimed the lives of more than 85,000 children under 5 years old, and triggered the worst humanitarian crisis on planet Earth — so as to defend America’s vital interest in ensuring that the Middle East’s poorest country is ruled by a puppet of Sunni Islamists, instead of Shia ones.

We finally get congress and even the Senate to vote for a resolution to remove our support for the genocide in Yemen, and Trump vetoes it.

The idea that he is an "enemy of the deep state" is ludicrous. He's just another tool of Pompeo, Bolton, Israel, the M-I Complex, etc.

Forget about impeachment or criminal charges for "collusion" or "obstruction"... why don't we start talking about stringing Trump up on war crimes? I'd be curious for anyone who claims to be a libertarian or anarchist to defend Trump at this point. He had the perfect opportunity to withdraw murderous aid and material support without having to burn a ton of political capital, and he didn't even take that.

[Tyler]

Forget about impeachment or criminal charges for "collusion" or "obstruction"... why don't we start talking about stringing Trump up on war crimes?

(Sigh) After giving up on pushing collusion he didn't do and obstruction he didn't do to chase war crimes he didn't do, maybe the Democrats will eventually get around to finding a presidential nominee who is actually electable.

[I Shrugged]

Then again, no one thought the GOP had anyone who could beat Hillary.

[dualstow]

Not much chance of that. They don't have anyone who could beat Trump.

I have finally come around to this possibility.
Well, we’ll all be “tools” of China in the long run.

[stuper1]

Hasn't Trump been the only recent president who has shown any backbone towards China in terms of protecting American trade and intellectual property?

[dualstow]

Indeed. I don’t mean the outcome would be any better with the Dems in power.

[moda0306]

Forget about impeachment or criminal charges for "collusion" or "obstruction"... why don't we start talking about stringing Trump up on war crimes?

(Sigh) After giving up on pushing collusion he didn't do and obstruction he didn't do to chase war crimes he didn't do, maybe the Democrats will eventually get around to finding a presidential nominee who is actually electable.

Well obviously certain dems are going to campaign for president in 2020. Luckily Republicans also have that option as we prosecute war-criminals of this admin and those-past...

But it won't be "dems" that go after him for war-crimes. Or if it is, it's a very select, unpopular, anti-establishment group of them.

Of course this will never happen. Agents of the state don't like to touch that war-power foreign policy stuff with a 40 foot pole.

[moda0306]

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/ ... yemen.html

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump repeatedly suggested that Saudi Arabia had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks — and that the United States should stop wasting resources on bloody Middle Eastern wars that have no real connection to our national interest.

As president, Trump just vetoed a congressional resolution that would have ended U.S. support for a Saudi war in Yemen that has likely claimed the lives of more than 85,000 children under 5 years old, and triggered the worst humanitarian crisis on planet Earth — so as to defend America’s vital interest in ensuring that the Middle East’s poorest country is ruled by a puppet of Sunni Islamists, instead of Shia ones.

We finally get congress and even the Senate to vote for a resolution to remove our support for the genocide in Yemen, and Trump vetoes it.

The idea that he is an "enemy of the deep state" is ludicrous. He's just another tool of Pompeo, Bolton, Israel, the M-I Complex, etc.

Forget about impeachment or criminal charges for "collusion" or "obstruction"... why don't we start talking about stringing Trump up on war crimes? I'd be curious for anyone who claims to be a libertarian or anarchist to defend Trump at this point. He had the perfect opportunity to withdraw murderous aid and material support without having to burn a ton of political capital, and he didn't even take that.

Of course I'd be in favor of the US withdrawing from all the wars that we are involved in, no matter which President started them.

But tell me, which wars have been started by Trump?

As soon as all previous Presidents are tried and convicted of war crimes, for wars they started, let's talk about this.

"Starting" a war isn't the only criminal offense. How one chooses to execute a war (expanding our murderous drone campaign, for instance) is also obviously a candidate as well.

But of course I agree with an aspect of the principle you propose... Dick Cheney should be included-if-not-the-front-of any war-criminal drag-net.

Luckily, we can pat our heads and rub our stomachs at the same time. Lock em all up! If our state collapses as a result of too many heads rolling, then any self-respecting anarchist should be happy.

[dualstow]

What about those of us who are not anarchists?

[moda0306]

Hasn't Trump been the only recent president who has shown any backbone towards China in terms of protecting American trade and intellectual property?

"American" intellectual property? Or global capital class (the ones who own it) intellectual property?

The TPP was actually pretty "good" on intellectual property if you want to bend over for investor/corporate IP rights. To me, that's just yet another way for the uber wealthy (American or foreign) to get even more-so.

But that's the majority of what these "Trade Deals" have really been. They're not about trading coconuts for corn (well not completely). They're about securing foreign corporate & investor property rights insulated from public response in the communities they exist. To the degree you support this but abhor human migration across artificial borders, you're pretty much a folding chair to global capital, and shouldn't wonder why you seem to have less than your parents, or why your kids will have less than you. By "you" I mean people in general...

[moda0306]

What about those of us who are not anarchists?

Well if this is regards to Trump's Yemen decision (and other related militarist ones), then you can attack it from other angles, such as hypocrisy of him (or more-so his supporters' assertions of him being 'anti-establishment' or against the 'deep-state'), foreign policy in-general, etc.

If you want to ignore it (say, because foreign policy isn't one of your top issues), that's fine.

If you favor it, then I'd be curious to hear why.

One doesn't have to be an anarchist to see the hypocrisy/idiocy on display... or even the war-crimes. Just a human with a working mind who will chuckle at phrases like "anti-establishment" or "taking on the deep-state."

However, I highly doubt this will affect his reelection chances. Americans simply don't care about the foreign policy stuff that much. It triggers them from time to time, but usually when that's the case, it's a pro-war trigger, not anti-war.

[Kriegsspiel]

Didn't we go over this in another thread? IIRC you were accusing Trump of war crimes because an American company sold a bomb to Saudi Arabia that they dropped on a school bus. That's not Trump committing a war crime.

[moda0306]

Didn't we go over this in another thread? IIRC you were accusing Trump of war crimes because an American company sold a bomb to Saudi Arabia that they dropped on a school bus. That's not Trump committing a war crime.

You don't recall correctly. Literally less than a minute of research will help you...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... rikes.html

[dualstow]

Didn't we go over this in another thread? IIRC you were accusing Trump of war crimes because an American company sold a bomb to Saudi Arabia that they dropped on a school bus. That's not Trump committing a war crime.

You don't recall correctly. Literally less than a minute of research will help you...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... rikes.html

I think what moda usually says is that Trump is "supporting (Saudi) genocide" in Yemen. You might be thinking of the following:

• viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9131&hilit=yemen&start=576 // Re: Trump as tragicomedy > see "Scott Horton"
• viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9268&p=165971&hilit=yemen#p165971 // Re: Is Trump Restoring Separation of Powers?

[Kriegsspiel]

Nothing in that article suggests Trump has committed a war crime. Also it's from when Obama was in office (OCT 2016), not Trump. EDIT: just re-read it and saw the part about drone strikes.

BTW I found the post I was referencing here. You said war-mongering not war-criming (Scott Horton did).

Yemen he's helping the U.S. participate in a terrible genocide. Afghanistan. Some in Syria though it appears to have died down a bit for now. Continuing to expand the empire into Africa.

I'll also add the ridiculous retrenchment with Iran, though sanctions aren't outright war.

I'd recommend following "Scott Horton" on anti-war stuff if you want the best version of that argument. He's no lefty (claims to be an ancap but rarely focuses on economics).

LOL... bro, I go to his site, and the first headline I see is "Bear Witness To American War Crimes". It's an article about a Saudi Arabian airstrike in Yemen. How is it an American war crime? Because the Saudis use American-made bombs . Give me a break. His other stuff might be ok, but didn't you think you should put his best foot forward? In fact, I didn't see anything that indicated Trump has started bombing Yemen.

A cursory search for Trump and Afghanistan turned up an Economist article saying that Trump authorized deploying 3,500 and relaxed restrictions on air support and on what we used to call Military Transition Teams, or MITTs/MIT teams, and a Brookings article that added that he's maintaining a presence there still. Although I don't think that's a good idea, it doesn't really sound like war mongering to me.

"Trump Syria" kinda tells me that he's kept up the bombing, but is only leaving 3,000 military personnel on the ground. One article said

He has ended support for anti-regime rebels. And he talks of recalling US forces assisting pro-western Kurds.

Trump’s objectives in Syria, in so far as he has a defined policy, are twofold. Firstly, to kill or catch remaining terrorists belonging to Islamic State. Secondly, to curb Iran’s influence by forcing the withdrawal of Revolutionary Guards units and Tehran-controlled Shia militias, as demanded by Israel.

Again, doesn't sound like war mongering. Drop links if you've already waded through this shit.

When looking for that one, I saw PointedStick had posted a thread that linked to this Politico article where members of the Obama administration were worrying about being accused of abetting war crimes that Saudi Arabia was committing.

Following the links from that Politico story, I see that they were referring to this memory-holed page that describes a US law:

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Section 620M “Limitation on Assistance to
Security Forces”
“(a) IN GENERAL. – No assistance shall be furnished under this Act or the Arms Export
Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of
State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of
human rights.
(b) EXCEPTION. –The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary
determines and reports to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committees
on Appropriations that the government of such country is taking effective steps to
bring responsible members to justice.
(c) DUTY TO INFORM. – In the event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to
this section, the Secretary of State shall promptly inform the foreign government of
the basis for such action and shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the
foreign government in taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of
the security forces to justice.

Which would be the applicable law, not (AFAICT) international criminal law (or UCMJ), which prosecutes war crimes.

[moda0306]

"Support" can be a misleading term. It's not "moral support." It's not selling weapons or allowing the sale of weapons. It's literal military support...

"The Americans are providing targeting intelligence and refueling Saudi warplanes involved in bombing rebel positions."

That is only the Yemen thing. Trump also expanded the war in Afghanistan...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

https://merip.org/2018/02/trumps-drone-surge/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ram ... hadow-wars


And military activity in Africa in-general...

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ver-africa


Not to mention Trump's disgusting support of whatever Israel/Netanyahu does, and yeah... you've got a war-criminal.

Yes Obama was one, too. Arguably worse in some ways. Better in others. But 1) He no-longer has much power compared to the current president, and 2) I'd probably be preaching to the choir here if I point out that Obama was subservient to the "deep state."

[moda0306]

Nothing in that article suggests Trump has committed a war crime. Also it's from when Obama was in office (OCT 2016), not Trump. EDIT: just re-read it and saw the part about drone strikes.

BTW I found the post I was referencing here. You said war-mongering not war-criming (Scott Horton did).

Yemen he's helping the U.S. participate in a terrible genocide. Afghanistan. Some in Syria though it appears to have died down a bit for now. Continuing to expand the empire into Africa.

I'll also add the ridiculous retrenchment with Iran, though sanctions aren't outright war.

I'd recommend following "Scott Horton" on anti-war stuff if you want the best version of that argument. He's no lefty (claims to be an ancap but rarely focuses on economics).

LOL... bro, I go to his site, and the first headline I see is "Bear Witness To American War Crimes". It's an article about a Saudi Arabian airstrike in Yemen. How is it an American war crime? Because the Saudis use American-made bombs . Give me a break. His other stuff might be ok, but didn't you think you should put his best foot forward? In fact, I didn't see anything that indicated Trump has started bombing Yemen.

A cursory search for Trump and Afghanistan turned up an Economist article saying that Trump authorized deploying 3,500 and relaxed restrictions on air support and on what we used to call Military Transition Teams, or MITTs/MIT teams, and a Brookings article that added that he's maintaining a presence there still. Although I don't think that's a good idea, it doesn't really sound like war mongering to me.

"Trump Syria" kinda tells me that he's kept up the bombing, but is only leaving 3,000 military personnel on the ground. One article said

He has ended support for anti-regime rebels. And he talks of recalling US forces assisting pro-western Kurds.

Trump’s objectives in Syria, in so far as he has a defined policy, are twofold. Firstly, to kill or catch remaining terrorists belonging to Islamic State. Secondly, to curb Iran’s influence by forcing the withdrawal of Revolutionary Guards units and Tehran-controlled Shia militias, as demanded by Israel.

Again, doesn't sound like war mongering. Drop links if you've already waded through this shit.

When looking for that one, I saw PointedStick had posted a thread that linked to this Politico article where members of the Obama administration were worrying about being accused of abetting war crimes that Saudi Arabia was committing.

Following the links from that Politico story, I see that they were referring to this memory-holed page that describes a US law:

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Section 620M “Limitation on Assistance to
Security Forces”
“(a) IN GENERAL. – No assistance shall be furnished under this Act or the Arms Export
Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of
State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of
human rights.
(b) EXCEPTION. –The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary
determines and reports to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committees
on Appropriations that the government of such country is taking effective steps to
bring responsible members to justice.
(c) DUTY TO INFORM. – In the event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to
this section, the Secretary of State shall promptly inform the foreign government of
the basis for such action and shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the
foreign government in taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of
the security forces to justice.

Which would be the applicable law, not (AFAICT) international criminal law (or UCMJ), which prosecutes war crimes.

Did you also notice that your assertion that Saudi's were simply using American-manufactured bombs was incorrect?

And yes Obama started the whole Yemen thing. You'll see no apologist garbage from me with regards to Obama. He was terrible on a handful of perma-war surveillance state issues (if you're an anti-war civil libertarian). Lock him up too. Like I said we can do multiple things at once with our sprawling justice system.

As far as the jurisdictional and legalese aspects of war-crime prosecution, I've got to dig into my sources for that. I've heard folks like Chomsky, Greenwald, Horton and a few others go into the actual various layers of legal precedent and procedural machinations of war crime prosecution, but they're not at my fingertips and it's been a while. It's also a bit difficult to suss out actual accusations of war crimes vs digging into the legal machinations of how they would/could/should be prosecuted.

[dualstow]

And you would save yourself a whole bunch of stress if you just accept the fact that corporate interests and the elites are not going away no matter who you vote for, so just be at peace with what you can not change, and try and use the system (legally) to your best benefit while simulaneously giving back to society what is important to you.

Words of wisdom.

Moda, just to satisfy my curiosity: are there any world leaders whom you think did a good job overall? Separately, any U.S. Presidents?

[moda0306]

But that's the majority of what these "Trade Deals" have really been. They're not about trading coconuts for corn (well not completely). They're about securing foreign corporate & investor property rights insulated from public response in the communities they exist. To the degree you support this but abhor human migration across artificial borders, you're pretty much a folding chair to global capital, and shouldn't wonder why you seem to have less than your parents, or why your kids will have less than you. By "you" I mean people in general...

I'm not sure if it's just me, but trying to decipher your posts through all the metaphors and side-speak to get the context is drudgery. Anyway, I completely disagree with the bolded part. Not sure why you draw the connection/conclusion that you did, but regardless, I have way more wealth than my parents did (as do my siblings) and I fully expect that my kids will have more than me at the same age. This country offers exceptional opportunities for all of its residents who are willing to work hard and not make stupid life choices. The problem is that most people are not willing to do the work and can't avoid making poor choices. That's on them. People are their own worst enemies.

And you would save yourself a whole bunch of stress if you just accept the fact that corporate interests and the elites are not going away no matter who you vote for, so just be at peace with what you can not change, and try and use the system (legally) to your best benefit while simulaneously giving back to society what is important to you.

It may not seem like it, but I'm at peace with the systems I can't control. These systems cause me personally little/no stress. In-fact, my analysis of these systems helps me come to the (perhaps incorrect but useful) conclusion that most people are balls of social proof and insecurity that have no idea what they're talking about, and I don't have to worry about their inconsistent ramblings about politics or life decisions (or investing... sort of what brought me here almost a decade ago).

And I didn't mean that EVERYONE is worse off than their parents. I just see many that are (or think they are) are completely misdiagnosing the problem. Good for you for helping produce two consecutive generations of improvement over the lot of the prior. I mean that... it probably takes focus and discipline. My point is that it takes far-more focus and discipline than it ever used to, and that this isn't an accident.

As to whether "this country" delivers exceptional opportunities to "all" of its residents, I'd probably have a bone to pick with you around the edges of that statement, but if it's so awesome, I see no reason to b!tch and moan about libruls all the live-long-day as so many here do (talk about not accepting something you can't control). If it has flaws or serious structural issues, let's examine them honestly (and structurally, not b!tching about individual failures).

We'd probably disagree on the individualist vs structural nature of the problems some Americans face. I think when you cut away a lot of the bullsh!t, it comes down to the fact that a high-school education and modest (not amazing) work ethic with few connections was far, far more likely to leave you financially secure in 1970 than it is today. And it's mostly the fault of class-unconscious masses that abandoned unions and embraced (if tacitly) trade deals that were designed to supplant their bargaining power as workers. Then when they aren't as wealthy as they thought they should have been they want to blame brown people and taxes. The first part about wages is something I'd consider a pretty undeniable fact. Whether it's important or not is probably a value proposition and we may or may not disagree. What caused/causes it is a matter of an unprovable cause/effect relationship that probably has some basis in fact, but we'll only be able to lend evidence towards it and never really know for sure.

I hope that last paragraph helps break down my thoughts more clearly. Less drudgery and all that.