Just Saying Who's Trumping der Fuhrer?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Richard Stanley, Jan 5, 2016.

  1. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    A Trumpian sign of the times?

    U.S. Strategic Command made an unexpected joke about American military might on Monday in its New Year's Eve message.

    Noting the "big" Times Square ball drop celebration at midnight, the unified command's account tweeted, "if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger."

    #TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big ball...if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger.

    Watch to the end! @AFGlobalStrike @Whiteman_AFB #Deterrence #Assurance #CombatReadyForce #PeaceIsOurProfession... pic.twitter.com/Aw6vzzTONg
    — US Strategic Command (@US_Stratcom) December 31, 2018
    The joke was followed by a slickly produced video of stealth jets with the words "stealth, ready, and lethal" flashing across the screen. The tweet encourages followers to "watch to the end!" If you do, you'll see two bombs released from a plane, followed by several massive explosions. ...

    In the 'good ol' days', somebody would lose their career over such a thing.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  2. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    The WSWS wrote about this, saying:


    Besides brief write-ups in the New York Times, Washington Post, and others, the media has ignored the incident. There has been no reporting beyond the briefest accounts of the tweet, its retraction, and the Pentagon’s good-natured declarations that a video accompanying the tweet shows a bomber dropping a nonnuclear munition. There has been no commentary. And the issue has not come up in any reported press briefings, in the White House or otherwise.

    Some questions about the incident that would be asked by a serious reporter at a Pentagon press briefing might include:

    • Has the author of the tweet been formally disciplined?

    • Did the author of the tweet violate orders or protocol? Was any insubordination involved?

    • If so, could this point to a broader breakdown of discipline within the US military command in charge of nuclear forces?

    But of course, such questions are simply not asked, and the emphasis of the media is to sweep the whole thing under the rug as quickly as possible.

    In this, the media is taking the same approach it took last January when some 1.5 million people in Hawaii received, without explanation, an emergency phone alert reading “BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.”

    In that case, too, the media simply moved on, with no opinion pieces or follow-up investigations of the event.
    But if the media simply wants to ignore the incident, why write about it at all? What makes this part of the "news that's fit to print"?

    Caitlin Johnstone wrote a column about the tweet too, and provided this explanation:


    The US military deleted the post and apologized for it because it received an angry backlash from hundreds of commenters and was circulated virally on Twitter for its jarringly creepy message, not because it did not reflect their values. It reflected their values perfectly....

    The real issue here was not values but perception. The US war machine pours an immense amount of energy into perception management, making sure that ordinary Americans either (A) ignore the horrific things that are being done in their name or (B) think that those things are awesome and patriotic. The offending post was clearly attempting to accomplish (B). A team of paid social media propagandists simply did not understand that ordinary human beings wouldn’t resonate with a message that amounts to “Hey I see you’re all preparing to bring in the new year, so watch how good we are at killing large numbers of people!”, and some damage control became necessary when everyone got freaked out.

    So perhaps the New York Times and WaPo write-ups were just damage control as well. But, does that really make any sense? If a few thousand people saw this on Twitter, that's a mistake. If a million more people see it mentioned on the New York Times, WaPo and NBC, then we know it's been green-lighted as propaganda.

    Just like the mention of the missing trillions on 9/10/2001. They're checking to see if anyone is still awake out here.
    Richard Stanley likes this.
  3. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    The following is the conclusion of a Politico article discussing that Trump seems as if he is following the advice of a Roman political pamphlet, the Commentariolum Petitionis, originally written as advice from Quintus Tullius Cicero to his older brother, the famous orator, Marcus Cicero, as the latter was running for the highest Roman office of consul around 64 BCE.

    The writer of the article, Jack Shafer, informs us that Trump does not follow all of the advice, but does so in such as being sure to smear and belittle his opponents at nearly every opportunity. And then he continues on eventually discussing the fate of the Cicero brothers, of which I have posited that Trump has been steering our republic to the same collective fate as Rome, just on a larger global scale. Trump, of course, is certainly not as eloquent and articulate as was Cicero (or even Hitler), but as I have discussed, his communications craft appears to have been carefully targeted, practiced, and honed.

    Like a bell chiming at noon, Quintus repeatedly tells Marcus to preach a gospel of hope to the voters—all but instructing him to manufacture and distribute red baseball caps bearing the “Make Rome Great Again” motto. Make your zealous supporters “believe that you will always be there to help them” and smother them in flattery. But “stick to vague generalities” that will assure “the common people that you have always been on their side,” he writes. “If you break a promise, the outcome is uncertain and the number of people affected is small. But if you refuse to make a promise, the result is certain and produces immediate anger in a larger number of voters.” Fill the house with supporters and pour promises into their heads so they’ll be enthusiastic enough about your message to proselytize on your behalf.

    “People are moved more by appearances than reality,” Quintus writes. “People would prefer you give them a gracious lie than an outright refusal.”

    How did the advice work out for Marcus Cicero? He won, just like Trump! But a couple of years later it all went to hell, so Trump might not want to follow Quintus’ script all the way to the end. As Freeman writes, “In 43 BC, Quintus and his brother Marcus were murdered as the republic itself died and the Roman Empire rose in its place.”

    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
  4. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    President Bone Spurs has recently hinted that he might invoke presidential emergency powers in order to build the wall, and today he has done so again.

    Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said Sunday that he might declare a national emergency imminently to secure money for his border wall.

    "I may declare a national emergency dependent on what's going to happen over the next few days," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Camp David.
    A White House official told CNN on Saturday that Trump was leaning towards declaring a national emergency to use military funding for his wall. Trump has demanded Congress appropriate money for the wall, and his dispute with Democrats over the issue pushed the government into an ongoing partial shutdown. ...


    The above all while Sarah Muckabee Sanders, see below, is strangely getting her related terror propaganda called out by the propaganda arm of Rupert Murdoch, albeit that the hard news division of Fox News plays things a bit straighter than the talking heads there.

    White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders ran into a buzzsaw Sunday morning when Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace challenged the Trump administration’s repeated false claims about terrorism and the southwestern border of the United States.

    On this week’s edition of Fox News Sunday, Sanders told Wallace that President Trump meant what he said when he declared that he would keep the government shut down for “years” if necessary, in order to secure funding for his border wall.

    But then, Wallace attacked a central theme of Trump’s push for a wall, the lie that tons of terrorists are streaming over the border with Mexico. He played a clip of Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen claiming, at this week’s Rose Garden press conference, that “CBP has stopped over 3,000 what we call special interest aliens trying to come into the country on the southern border. Those are aliens who the Intel community has identified are of concern.”

    “But special interest aliens are just people who have come from countries that have ever produced a terrorist, they’re not terrorists themselves,” Wallace said, and added that “the state department says, quote, ‘there were no credible evidence of any terrorist coming across the border from Mexico,'” citing a report that was released in September. ...


    Of course, the question is begged, why is this such a (fake) emergency just now? With the Dems getting ready for massive investigative hearings and Mueller supposedly soon to finish.
  5. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    With President Bone Spurs giving a big speech tonight on the 'Crisis at the Border', the below is the alleged origin of the Great Wall, if we can believe the seeming idiot, Sam Nunberg that is. All this in the context that Bone Spurs is threatening to invoke his emergency powers, which appears may be a trial run at dissolving the Constitution. And that Bone Spurs has only been increasing his pushing of Putin's talking points, the latest being the inane idea that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to fight against terrorism. The USSR was there to continue its imposition of what is essentially radical cultural reform upon an ultra-conservative Muslim people, especially the rural Afghanis.

    These people were opposed to what they saw as 'cultural degradation', and all US presidents from Jimmy Carter on supported the mujaheddin, albeit with the aim of cynically using them as proxies. But what justifies Bone Spur's mischaracterization of this, and other items such Moldova, such that it aligns so much with Putin, as opposed to either the Truth or Western distortions? And why is Trump so blatantly obvious in doing so? Can a serious person in the Kremlin really want such a gold-plated dildo as their agent?

    President Donald Trump’s obsession with a border wall with Mexico has now kept the government partially shut for three weeks. But the commander in chief didn’t always think it was such an essential idea. In fact, it started out as a gimmick, or, as the New York Times calls it, “a mnemonic device of sorts.” During the time when Trump was weighing his presidential candidacy, aides wanted to come up with a way to help him remember to talk about getting tough on immigration, which was always seen as a key issue in his campaign.

    Political advisers Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone apparently came up with the idea. “How do we get him to continue to talk about immigration?” Nunberg claims he told Stone. “We’re going to get him to talk about he’s going to build a wall.” The plan worked like a charm. Trump talked about immigration in his speeches, and the wall narrative got huge reactions from the crowd, which obviously thrilled Trump. So he kept pushing the idea harder and harder.

    The laser focus on the wall, though, makes even some immigration hardliners nervous, because most don’t actually see it as the most important priority. And some who agree with Trump that immigration needs to be curbed worry that he’ll be willing to trade away things that are far more important in order to get his wall. “I’ve always thought it created a danger that he would trade almost anything in order to get the wall,” said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. “I’m still worried about that now.”...


    But it is not just Bone Spurs acting so outrageously, but several members of his administration, Pence, Sanders, Nielson, etc.. Pence stated that 10 terrorists per day have been caught crossing the Mexican border, while the stats say only 6 in the last year. Far more terrorists have been caught crossing the Canadian border and at airports. Here are some more stats: https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/steve-rattner-fact-checks-trump-s-border-stats-1421902915638

    Also, we must consider Bone Spurs's position on the Great Wall in the context of the Great Walk Back(s) from the announced Syria withdrawal and the Defeat of ISIS.

    Turkey’s president is fuming. Israeli leaders are nervous. Syrian Kurds are terrified.

    That’s the global state-of-play three weeks after President Donald Trump abruptly announced a decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton are now on separate swings through the Middle East, where they’re both trying to calm jittery U.S. allies – and to walk back the president’s statements.

    “There’s been a lot of noise about this withdrawal from Syria, and we want to make sure they understand completely what that means,” Pompeo told CNBC in an interview Monday before leaving for the diplomatic blitz.

    That “noise” started on Dec. 19, when Trump abruptly announced a decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria, where they have been fighting ISIS. Trump declared three weeks ago the 2,000 American troops in Syria are “all coming back, and they’re coming back now” and that that ISIS had been vanquished – an assertion experts say is inaccurate.

    Bolton contradicted the president during a stop in Israel on Sunday – saying U.S. troops would only leave Syria once ISIS is completely eradicated and the U.S. had secured assurances from Turkey that it would not attack Kurdish fighters allied with the U.S. The Syrian Kurds have been America's most important ally in the fight against ISIS. ...

    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019
  6. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    This "fact-checking" is assuming that the word "terrorist" has some clear meaning, as opposed to simply being an insult or slur. The "ten terrorists a day" are people that Homeland Security calls "special interest aliens"; that is, from countries allegedly associated with terrorism? The problem is not that Trump, Pence, Sanders & etc. are lying, so much as that they're expanding the definition of a terrorist. A terrorist, according to the new normal, is anyone who comes from a country on the blacklist.

    Same problem here. Afghanistan shared a border with the Soviet Union, and the Soviets sent billions of economic and military aid between 1955 and 1978. As Frum explained in his article, the Afghan government during that time was friendly to the Soviets, but arguably not exactly a puppet regime. The prime minister, Daoud Khan, was opposed by Pakistan's ISI and by a Marxist party, which eventually overthrew him. This Marxist party, the PDPA, went on a rampage and started killing tens of thousands of its political opponents.

    The ISI exploited the chaos, and the US also was tapped for funding for the Islamist "mujahideen" insurgents. That word, "mujahideen", is a generic term for any Muslim who heeds the call to jihad. But, the presence of Pakistani, Saudi Arabian and American funding was a major factor in causing the breakout of civil war.

    A suspicious person would also ask whether there was any "hidden hand" involved in the overthrow of the progressive moderate, Daoud Khan, by the Marxist radicals.

    At any rate, it wasn't until after the US had started funding the Marxists' Islamic radical opponents, that the Soviet Union decided to invade. As Wikipedia explains, "The full significance of the U.S. sending aid to the mujahideen prior to the invasion is debated among scholars. Some assert that it directly, and even deliberately, provoked the Soviets to send in troops.[108][109][110][111][112]".

    If Wikipedia is correct (quoting Steve Coll, "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden"), it wasn't until ~1984 that the Americans and Pakistanis started to "encourage" the Mujahideen to engage in cross-border raids into the Soviet Union.

    After the Soviets exited Afghanistan, the "Mujahideen" fragmented and essentially ceased to exist as a political entity. In their place, emerged the "Taliban". But they're one and the same people. So if we identify the Taliban as "Terrorists", why wouldn't it be correct to also describe the "Mujahideen" the same way? Only difference I can see, is that the US was funding the Mujahideen to attack the Soviets and their allies in Afghanistan; while Iran and maybe Pakistan fund the Taliban to fight against Americans.

    Since Putin is generally precise and accurate in his historical statements, I'd be surprised if he actually ever said that the Soviets went into Afghanistan because "Terrorists" were coming across the border into the USSR. But he might have said that the USSR invaded to fight Islamic radicals, the same ones who eventually began making "Terrorist" raids into Soviet territory, and the same people that America has since identified as "Terrorists".

    Of course it's Orwellian that Trump says the Soviets were "right to be there"; that is, right to be fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan; when at that very same time, the USA was funding those same "terrorists."

    Of course, as the old saying goes: one person's "Terrorist" is another person's "Freedom Fighter".

    But wait -- perhaps Trump's statement is closer to "the Truth" than it is to "Western distortions"? As to what Putin actually said, the closest thing I can track down is this recent resolution by the Russian Duma (presumably with Putin's approval?) which states (Google translate):


    ...the decision on the entry of Soviet troops to Afghanistan was taken in full compliance with the norms of international law.

    In addition, the draft statement of the State Duma draws attention to the fact that this decision "was made in accordance with the treaty of friendship, good neighborliness and cooperation between the USSR and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, taking into account the repeated requests of the Afghan leadership of that time for direct Soviet intervention in the conflict"

    Self serving, perhaps, but it says nothing about "terrorism" as the cause of the 1979 Soviet intervention.
  7. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Wait a minute, didn't you just finish telling us that:

    Putin should be so lucky as to have such an agent working for him.
  8. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    No, Jerry. Perhaps you are mistaking between when I am reporting on the narrative being provided in the media and when I, from time to time, complain that this whole tableau is too pat. It is too easy to see that Bone Spurs is seriously defective and kompromised, unless, of course, one is a 'true-believing' Trumpee that has bought the line that he is the new messiah.

    What I have been saying is that the surface narrative does indeed make Trump appear as an agent of Putin, but the problem here is that if this was all on the up and up (in terms of spook tradecraft) then Putin would not want his agent to be so blatantly obvious. One is supposed to save their agent for the most critical objectives, not making issues about Moldova and such.

    Too lucky in my book. But as I've also said, Putin is also some hidden hand's puppet.

    Of course, this aspect has been addressed in the media, that Trump literally fell into Putin's lap, having been long targeted, since the 1980's, as a traditional Russian intel asset. This as one whose various peccadilloes could be leveraged at the right time.

    As I have discussed several times on this thread, we are left to ponder about how the Republican primary process had been modified so as to allow this non-Republican (Trump) to hijack the process. And then ponder how the Clinton machine was sabotaged, by Hillary and Bill, to run such a defective campaign when the DNC had sabotaged the Sander's campaign.

    Actually, I don't need to ponder these matters, it was all rigged, as is usually the case. The marks are always the people, and this includes that Putin also knows what the real game is.

    We've just lost two more top 'generals' and this is starting to evoke Stalin's purging of the GRU command structure 8 times before the start of WWII. But the Georgetown boys are still on WH duty.
  9. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    "If there's a concrete Wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it. But get to the other side of that Wall". -- Donald J. Trump


    As Bone Spurs's wall is not contiguous from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, one can just go around it, as the Germans did with the French Maginot Line. Or they can use ladders to get over it, dig a tunnel under it, or just do like Bone Spurs says, and go through it. In some portions of the border, there is a several hour response time for the Border Patrol, of whom Bone Spurs has decided don't need to be paid ... because there is an Emergency, which he is again stating that he will invoke.

    He is not paying the TSA while many more terrorists flood into our airports, and cross the Canadian border, or regularly fly in and out of Andrews AFB.
  10. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

  11. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    It seems that I am part of a sizable minority that thinks all this is leading to a civil war. In actuality, this would be the third such in the USA, as the first one was with the 'territory' of Utah, just a few years before the more famous one.

    A senior Russian official has canceled a planned visit to the United States, claiming he feared a second civil war being waged by opposing political forces there.

    Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia's Roscosmos State Space Corporation, who served as deputy prime minister until May 2017, said Thursday that rising tensions between Republicans and Democrats were leading to a breakdown of U.S. society. This included the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), one of many federal agencies affected by a government shutdown due to an inability for the rival U.S. parties to agree on funding for a border wall proposed by President Donald Trump.

    "I think that America is actually engulfed by its second civil war now," Rogozin told the Rossiya-24 TV channel, as translated by the state-run Tass Russian News Agency.
    [see also: http://tass.com/science/1039354]

    Rogozin is not the first to raise the prospect of a second Civil War amid the polarized political climate in the U.S. In June, former Trump adviser Roger Stone warned of a potential civil war in an interview with Newsweek and, days later, University of California, Berkeley professor Robert Reich argued that "serious social unrest" may be on the way, even if an actual civil war remained unlikely. Later that month, Republican Congressman Steve King tweeted, "America is heading in the direction of another Harpers Ferry" and "After that comes Ft. Sumter," referring to the Confederate raid on the U.S. fort that sparked the Civil War.

    Amid all this talk of Civil War, a poll that same month found 31 percent of likely U.S. voters thought the prospect of a second such conflict breaking out in the next five years was likely.

  12. Suchender

    Suchender Member

    "...a poll found 31 percent of likely U.S. voters thought the prospect of a second such conflict breaking out in the next five years was likely..."

    The public is ALWAYS wrong !
    British public never felt animosity towards Germany, but towars France, and everyone was sure there never will be a war between Britain and Germany, but likely with France !

    We know now how that went !
    Twice !

    Numerous historical studies of the press and "public opinion" suggest that newspapers are mirror images of the mood of the times in which they are printed. In an ideal world enjoying free and unfettered access to information by all interested members of the "public," and where the press maintains a high level of objectivity when scrutinizing governmental affairs, such may be the case. But in the real world of cutthroat politics there is an even greater likelihood for "public opinion" to become a pawn of powerful decision-makers. Within such an environment, the role of the press is much more problematic, and its identification with "public opinion" tenuous at best..... From the lofty heights of being considered Britain's crown jewel of journalism, The Times stooped to become during the 1930s an organ of government propaganda. In the process, it distorted "public opinion" to the extent that the general "public's" ability to influence national policy was immeasurably weakened. The Times was also seriously compromised when its prior policy of being prime critic of governmental decision-making was reversed in the cause of partisan advocacy. The result was a dangerous lag in "public" perceptions of the perilous course on which Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy was leading the country until the virtual outbreak of war.
    Richard Stanley likes this.
  13. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    But what kind of a civil war?

    I can easily imagine a very high level of general mayhem and chaos developing in central cities, where racial and class segregation are persistent realities. The next recession could easily escalate to the point where most people are unemployed, denied of any public assistance, and generally starving to death. Not everyone is going to choose to die quietly alone, especially when guns are readily available.

    The propaganda is directing this violence to break along ethnic lines (white Republicans vs. a diversified ensemble of black, chicano, islamic and LGBTQ Democrats) rather than along class lines. But I expect the violence will be ad hoc, disorganized, almost on an individual basis. Eventually order will be restored by the central authority, after the desired level of population reduction is achieved.

    What I can't imagine is some sort of red state vs. blue state civil war, beginning with secession of one side or the other, and ending up with contests for air superiority, or ballistic missile exchanges. While rank and file Democrats and Republicans may genuinely feel high levels of animosity towards each other, the politicians have a much more cooperative and fraternal view of their opponents.

    Hi Suchender, would you venture a guess as to what's actually going to happen? According to this recent poll, almost half of American active-duty military troops are expecting a new war to break out within a year, most likely involving Russia or China. Do you agree with these troops?
  14. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Sounds familiar... along these lines, the WSWS pointed out this morning:


    Trump reiterated his threats to end the ongoing government shutdown by declaring a national emergency to bypass Congress and appropriate funds to build a border wall.

    “I have the absolute right to declare a national emergency,” Trump said. “Probably I will do it… I would almost say definitely. This is a national emergency.”

    In threatening to override Congress with a “state of emergency,” Trump is making clear that he is prepared to use the presidency to effectively obliterate the separation of powers, marking a milestone in the destruction of American democracy. ....

    What is striking, however, is the extraordinarily restrained response, including outright support, from Trump’s critics in Washington and in the media.

    The New York Times, which speaks for the Democratic Party and a substantial section of the financial elite, published an article Thursday calling the declaration of a national emergency “the only politically realistic way out of the shutdown crisis in the nation’s capital.”

    While acknowledging that the move would “be an extraordinary violation of constitutional norms,” the newspapers all but endorsed the action: “Trump’s threatened move offers both sides a face-saving solution in the budget standoff between the president and congressional Democrats.”
    Richard Stanley likes this.
  15. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Yes, this is the supposed "off-ramp" that precariously depends on the Trump Supreme Court. We are supposed to feel reassured because Chief Justice Roberts has switched sides several times recently.

    The NYT, and the WaPo, might better be seen as the unofficial propaganda mouthpieces for the real Deep State, aka the Hidden Hand. Always has been the case while they pretend to be somewhat Left (democratic in the good sense) in posture. This is no different than the national Democratic Party, which more often than not supports war.

    What will happen now in the case of a new Operation Himmler, which the original kicked off WWII at the border between Germany and Poland? BTW, I stayed up late last night watching a docu series that presented a chronological series of factoids and quotes in the run up to and during WWII. It makes my comparison between Trump and Hitler even more compelling, and chilling. I'll post on it subsequently. But for here, it did also discuss, as have one of the other docus I've discussed recently, that it was the Nazi base that was itching for war, as opposed to most of the rest of the populace. I suspect that the supposed American 31% is highly represented by Trumpista's and probably more concentrated in the South.

    It also stated that once Operation Himmler went into effect that the propaganda and other organs, including the totalitarian nature of the Nazi system, made it impossible to dissent. Trump has already suggested that those who are against his wall are 'enemies'.

    If Trump is successful with his first emergency declaration he will likely announce more -- more that will achieve the level of totalitarian control over dissent, by either the media or the people. In fact, he would likely use an Antifa, or false flag Antifa, uprising as a pretext. There are still a large number of crackerjack militias spread throughout the country that could be employed for such.

    This is the classic social dialectic, the cosmopolitan city cat versus the country junkyard dog.

    I can imagine it breaking along these lines. And the politicians are nowhere near as fraternal as the days before Georgetown Clinton and Next to the Pope Gingrich threw their (literal) pussy grenades into the mix. Since then the pols do not socialize across the divide as they mostly don't stay in Washington D.C. anymore. The Catholic Koch brothers, followed by Trump, have radicalized the Republicans to a point where they are no longer recognizable.

    Just as the media has its duplicity, Kevin McCarthy was recorded as saying to the feckless Paul Ryan et al., that then candidate Trump was obviously on the payroll of the Russians (like Dana Rohrbacher), yet they did nothing to obstruct Trump, rather just the opposite. This 'recording' was likely part of the polarizing psyop.

    Just like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell is enabling this crisis, which would be over now if he had allowed the Senate to vote on the House funding bills, which the Senate had already voted on the same exact thing in the prior session. There are now enough Senate Republicans stating that they are willing to go against the grain. And, there is nothing new now, except that the Dems have the House, when before Trump could have done all this in the prior two years.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  16. Suchender

    Suchender Member

    A war between the U.S. (NATO) and China + Russia as the opponent ?

    No, I don't.

    Neither Russia nor China are ready to dominate the sea !
    THEY won't start a war because they can't win.

    Will America (NATO) start a war ? Europe won't. Then the U.S. by herself ? But it's already dominateing the world. What would she gain ?

    We are talking about a possible WW3 here !

    No. Those militars are having a tunnel view......
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  17. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    A Border Patrol official shows Bone Spurs the image of a tunnel under the previous (to Trump) existing wall:


    The image above from this 5 minute CNN clip:

    In the clip, Bone Spurs again states that he likes China better than Democrats Chuck and Nancy. Again stoking domestic divisions. Facts no longer matter, ... as has frequently happened before.
  18. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    As I stated a few posts prior today, I started watching a 2015 documentary series focusing on different aspects of Hitler. The first episode is mysteriously titled "To Win or To Win" which is just the way I like titles.

    Hitler - Anecdotes, Myth and Lies - To Win or To Win - 54 min
    Contrary to what many people believe Hitler was a very poor strategist. His experience on the battlefield was limited to the months he fought in the Great War where he rose to the rank of corporal. Desperate for military glory but deeply unsure of himself, he tried to hide his own shortcomings and scorned the advice of professional soldiers, who criticised his way of directing the war. https://amzn.to/2AHsnMF

    As I stated prior, the series is a chronological presentation of factoids and relevant quotations, in many cases giving some different interpretation of various matters. The series does not challenge the view presented by Suvorov, in Icebreaker, that Stalin was really going full bore to prepare for an offensive (and in so doing destroyed all of his frontier defenses), while it does tell us that Stalin clearly had one weeks advance warning of the German attack. Similarly it does not acknowledge such as Robert Stinnett's stunning presentation in his Day of Deceit, about complete USA foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack.

    Despite the shortcomings, I post this on this thread, because of the stunning parallels between Trump and Hitler vis-a-vis their respective relationships with their military generals. With Trump this particular parallel has been gradually revealed as he has been forced to dismiss so many high level generals now and/or belittle them, after he had first told us how great they all were. But now, we find out, that like Hitler, he knows more about military affairs, and everything else under the Sun, than the generals and everyone else.

    Just as Suvorov had stated, Hitler's goose was cooked with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement, but he had also been told by his first echelon of old school generals that his war would be a disaster in any case. But who knew better? General Beck had early warned Hitler and thus incurred Hitler's wrath. Such would occur over and over, till the end. Hitler would frequently be left with compliant 'political' generals, and when forced to put a competent officer in a command of a failing situation would make such as a proper tactical retreat a problem between them.

    The documentary thus discusses that Hitler was not ever highly regarded as a military strategist by the generals, but they did not feel they had the support to object, given both the Nazi political dynamics and combined with their professional sense of duty to their nation. The Liddle Corporal was democratically elected after all.

    I believe that it was in this episode that Hitler is quoted as describing himself as a new Napoleon (and claims he will not make the French mistake of Moscow, only he does much worse at almost every turn). In turn, we are told by such as Ivana (Zelnickova) Trump that Trump kept a copy of Mein Kampf beside his bed, while of course, we are separately told that Trump may have never read a single book in his life. But maybe he managed this one page at a time? In any case, all 3 of these are shoehorned into their roles, as being extreme outsiders with respect to their new roles.

    In one episode, upon receiving some criticism, Hitler is claimed to have said that he was using the identical tactics as Stalin, regarding purging those around him. Today, Bone Spurs is having extreme difficulty getting anyone to take any important position, except lackeys. The new Attorney General nominee, William Barr, was an enabler for Bush 41 pardoning the criminals of the Iran-Contra affair, like Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter. And so we must ponder that Barr will facilitate pardons and other obstructions regarding the Russiagate investigations.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  19. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    The following short clip is a nice compendium of Trump's supreme mastery over everything under the Sun:


    Chuck Todd mentions at the end that since Trump 'obviously' knows more about everything than anybody else, that nobody else should run for 2020. People have commented on this aspect for both Trump and Hitler, that it is a sign of great insecurity, due to their 'humble' origins and delusions of grandeur. Maybe so, but in the eyes of their admirers they are also messiahs.
  20. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    As the result of yesterday's bombshell NYT report that the FBI had launched a counter-intelligence investigation directly into Agent Orange Leaks behaviors upon the firing of Comey, Jonathan Turley has written an interesting theory that what we have witnessed is a case of 'dueling cognitive biases'. However, it may also still be a case that one side or the other is correct in their interpretation. One has to still explain why Herr Drumpf has so consistently aligned himself to Putin's agenda and preferences. And/or, maybe this is yet all a contrived drama, meant to create the even wider cleft in American society to be leveraged yet more, and that all American roads lead to ... Georgetown.

    The result is two completely contained and separate narratives that fed off the actions of each other. There likely was bias in the original assumptions, with a willingness at the FBI to believe Trump would be a tool of the Russians, and a willingness by Trump to believe the FBI would be a tool of the Clintons. Every move and countermove confirmed the original biases. Trump continued to denounce what he saw as a conspiracy, while the FBI continued to investigate his obstructive attitude. One side saw a witch hunt where the other saw a mole hunt.

    Of course, neither side can accept at this point that they may have been wrong about the motivations of the other side. In economics that is called path dependence. So much has been built on the Republican and Democratic sides on these original assumptions that it is impossible to now deconstruct from those narratives. In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy. Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation. Instead, this could prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one wants to admit it.


Share This Page