[Zagadka]

I didn't say those guys aren't evil. A lot of people can be evil at the same time. He isn't the MOST evil, but he's a... bad hombre.

[maz]

I don't know much about Assad other than that he was an eye doctor and that he has a hot wife. I heard an interesting assertion that he is a crypto-Christian.

What exactly makes Assad evil?

[Rich]

I didn't say those guys aren't evil. A lot of people can be evil at the same time. He isn't the MOST evil, but he's a... bad hombre.

What was Bashar Assad meant to do? The vast majority of westerners, if they thought about Islam at all prior to 9/11, may have sheltered under the pathetic little fantasy that Islam was a religion of peace. That it was just some quaint and harmless alternative to Quakerism, Buddhism, or Church of England Christianity. But some of us knew better and the Assads knew better. We had seen the attack on the Grand Mosque, an insurrection against the Saudi Monarchy because its enforcement of Islam was not extreme enough. We had seen the Iranian terror regime, the Taliban and the horrific Sunni Arab terrorism in Algeria.

What was Bashar meant to do? Abandon his country and flee to the West where he could moralise to hearts content without ever getting his hands dirty? Bashar tried to liberalise, to modernise and democratise Syria, but he soon discovered that the people who come to lead amongst Sunni Muslims are animals. He discovered what his father had learnt and what Putin discovered in chechnya. Bashar had to reluctantly clamp down at home and seek an alliance with the least bad Muslim terrorists in the region the Iranian regime and its Hezbollah clients.

[AFAIK]

Rich messed up the formatting;

Trump submits to the establishment; the alt-right can't take it!

[Frollein]

I think the really interesting thing is what will happen in four years. People voted for Trump either because they were desperate enough to believe his promises that he'd create jobs for them and stop having their sons and daughters killed in wars around the globe, or because they hated the establishment and thought he'd be the wrecking ball.

Both groups have been disappointment. The feeling of betrayal (and in the case of people hoping for a better future - one where they'd be holding a steady job, for example - crushed, a feeling of despair) must be acute, and I can't imagine it'll go away. If anything, it'll intensify and change to hate. And the left hates Trump anyway, though it'll be interesting to see how quickly all those noble marches will die down now that he has rejoined the establishment and the useful idiots are no longer needed.

Will people fall again for an "independent" saviour figure? Will they stop voting? Because I can't imagine that people will just shrug and choose between establishment candidate 1 and establishment candidate 2 as is expected of them. The suspicion that this whole "choice" thing is a charade has become certainty now, and can't be resurrected.

Meanwhile, all the real world problems of the country won't go away - they'll grow and get more acute. So the question is, where will the country be in four years, and how will the population react, now that both camps are estranged from the creme de la creme in Washington?

[Rich]

Rich messed up the formatting;

Trump submits to the establishment; the alt-right can't take it!

Who is the Alt Right? I'm alt Liberal not Alt right. Alt Liberal just means real Liberal, not an apologist for Islamo-facsism or an appeaser of fascist China and Communist North Korea. You could also call me an Alt Feminist, but again that would just mean real feminist as opposed to apologist for Islamic misogyny and promoter of Black Rap Rape culture.

There don't even seem to many Alt Right on the forum and this is a concentration forum for the ideological diversity, and all that is weird and wonderful.

[Rich]

Instead, we are here to offer partnership -- based on shared interests and values -- to pursue a better future for us all.

Trump is both a liar and full of shit. The shared interests are Saudi and Israel not Saudi and America. We do not share values with those that won't even allow women to drive, and flog rape victims. Trump is displaying the worst of corrupt establishment cynicism. I hope all decent people can come out and unequivocally condemn Trump for this disgusting grovelling, before the perpetrators of this barbaric religion.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I think the really interesting thing is what will happen in four years. People voted for Trump either because they were desperate enough to believe his promises that he'd create jobs for them and stop having their sons and daughters killed in wars around the globe, or because they hated the establishment and thought he'd be the wrecking ball.

Both groups have been disappointment. The feeling of betrayal (and in the case of people hoping for a better future - one where they'd be holding a steady job, for example - crushed, a feeling of despair) must be acute, and I can't imagine it'll go away. If anything, it'll intensify and change to hate. And the left hates Trump anyway, though it'll be interesting to see how quickly all those noble marches will die down now that he has rejoined the establishment and the useful idiots are no longer needed.

Will people fall again for an "independent" saviour figure? Will they stop voting? Because I can't imagine that people will just shrug and choose between establishment candidate 1 and establishment candidate 2 as is expected of them. The suspicion that this whole "choice" thing is a charade has become certainty now, and can't be resurrected.

Meanwhile, all the real world problems of the country won't go away - they'll grow and get more acute. So the question is, where will the country be in four years, and how will the population react, now that both camps are estranged from the creme de la creme in Washington?

This is a failure to understand US politics. The people that vote Republican already believe that the Republicans are not part of the establishment. Just by having R next to his name Trump will secure the vote of around 40% of the electorate. The challenge is convincing the next ten percent or so to vote for him. After all his people don't feel betrayed at all by what he's doing. The people that might have some reason to feel betrayed are the losers who actually thought he would go full blown Nazi, and those people are such a small portion of the electorate they're not even worth mentioning.

For my money he'll get re-elected if the economy is good. If it sucks, he's going to find himself on his ass.

[Frollein]

The people that vote Republican already believe that the Republicans are not part of the establishment.

If that was true, why didn't they vote for Jeb Bush, or Cruz, or any of the other Republican hopefuls?

[Zagadka]

Jeb had the enthusiasm of a damp brick. He was the one I was hoping would do well.

[Rich]

I'm not American, so my primary interest is foreign policy, but that applies to many of those that comment on American politics in this forum. Donald Trump was awful on foreign policy, it was just that Bush, Cruz, Rubio and Clinton were all far far worse.

I couldn't care less about American immigration, apart from the fact that their racist immigration policies discriminate against me as a British person. Of course I know that mass immigration is an unalloyed good for the indigenous population. California's water shortage can obviously only be solved by flooding the State with millions more people as Britain's housing crisis, extortionate house prices and rents can only be solved by importing millions more people. But as I said I don't care about American immigration policy. Foreign policy and immigration aside, Trump is an awful human being, if I was an American I would probably have voted for Clinton.

However there is a key point that seems to be missed about the Trump phenomenon. Trump makes no attempt to avoid lying. He'll expose himself as a liar by saying the exact opposite in the same interview, maybe even in the same sentence. Clinton on the other hand tries to minimise direct open lying as much as possible, while still hiding what her true views are. Clinton represents the extreme of the way regular politicians try and keep their views secret from the public. Clinton couldn't even admit that she had changed her views on Gay marriage.

Trump's words are virtually worthless, he could say the exact opposite two sentences down the line. However this is not fundamentally different to Clinton and other mainstream politicians. At least Trump can sometimes be amusing, what's funny or entertaining about listening to Clinton spending fifteen minutes not answering the question?

[Godstud]

Trump was always "establishment". He just suckered a whole shitload of stupid Americans into thinking he wasn't.

[Rich]

Trump was always "establishment". He just suckered a whole shitload of stupid Americans into thinking he wasn't.

No, Trump was always rich and privileged, he was always part of the upper class, but that is not the same thing as being part of the establishment. Being in or not in the establishment is neither good nor bad. The establishment is not the font of all wisdom, but nor is it the source of all evil or stupidity. There is a Republican establishment and there is a Democratic establishment. There is also an American establishment based on the commonality between the Republican and Democratic establishments.

Both Republican and Democratic party establishments pander to their own forms of popularism. Both pander and attempt to co opt and harness anti establishment groups. The line of what is acceptable to the establishment is far from clear, but what is clear is that Trump put himself way beyond what was acceptable to the Republican establishment and the American establishment as a whole. His comments about illegal Mexicans, Megyn Kelly and the Muslim ban undoubtedly put him beyond the bounds. His comments as a major candidate, never mind any actions as a President were profoundly destabilising to the status quo.

[Godstud]

Nonsense. Everything he has done has been done to further the establishment. Lower taxes for the rich. Cut off healthcare to those who can't afford it. You're simply trying to JUSTIFY it.

[Igor Antunov]

Including ditching the TPP?

[Rich]

Nonsense. Everything he has done has been done to further the establishment. Lower taxes for the rich. Cut off healthcare to those who can't afford it. You're simply trying to JUSTIFY it.

I have no problem criticising Trump, in the way you have with criticising the Thai establishment. I've attacked his disgraceful comments against Megyn kelly and I've said it was worrisome that the Islamophobic cause might be brought into disrepute by association with Trump.

The fact is that bad as Trump's Syrian policy is, it would have far worse under Clinton if the Jewish supremacist establishment had completely got their way as they would with Rubio, Cruz and Clinton.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

If that was true, why didn't they vote for Jeb Bush, or Cruz, or any of the other Republican hopefuls?

In America, businessmen will always be seen as more "outsider" than politicians, even if those politicians are considered outsiders. For example, Bush was not seen as being part of the establishment by many except for retroactively. He actually campaigned on the idea that he was against business as usual, Washington politics. Same as HW, same as Reagan.

Trump is a symptom of the Republicans' insistence on idealizing businessmen, calling them job creators, saying the private sector is smarter than politicians. And perhaps too he benefited from his unquestionable charisma, especially his charisma as perceived by the masses of Republican voters.

[Godstud]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[The Immortal Goon]

Including ditching the TPP

The TPP was largely a way to cut China out as a sphere of influence in the Pacific and maintain US advantage in the area.

I want to take pains to note here that I'm a Marxist. The TPP was in no way a good thing.

Trump didn't get rid of the TPP because he's a Marxist, or really sympathized with some guy in a pickup truck with a Confederate flag bumper-sticker that hates Chinamen.

He did it because he's investing in China and wants China to do well even if it diminishes American hegemony over the Pacific. That's how he's going to make a grip of cash.

Here's a bunch of sources from a bunch of different ideological orientations:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... hics-video

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... -for-visas

http://www.timesofisrael.com/family-of- ... nvestment/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ing-comey/

http://www.breitbart.com/news/sister-of ... nvestment/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ng-plants/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/busi ... .html?_r=0

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande ... 8da8e01dc8

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/busi ... visas.html

He was always, and remains, part of the establishment. He just successfully got a bunch of stupids to think that he wasn't because he pointed out that everybody else was also part of the establishment.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Quick everyone! Invest in Chinese companies! /s