How to deal with Trump? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15158741
jimjam wrote:Worship him, do a lot of screaming and flag waving and show up dressed like this at one of his peaceful free speech riots:

Image


Old white people that want to play commando.
By late
#15158743
B0ycey wrote:
Forget the waffle and address this please.



I don't want to hear about success, failure, oil, foriegn affairs, Trump, Obama or the fucking pope. Explain to me why what you wrote wasn't fiction. Not only did the UN say Americas involvement was illegal, it wasn't even a conflict zone until the West sent weapons to the Kurds. America thought there was enough movement to topple Assad and once Russia backed him the opportunity was over. They could also do more for peace by NOT SUPPLYING WEAPONS to the Kurds, staying out of it and instead bring forward a charter to the UN to protect them. There is also human rights and needless war in Yemen and the US doesn't feel the need to protect them. There are in Syria for a reason. And that reason is oil and influence in the ME.



Syria is a failed state.

There was a big struggle over a gas pipeline. We wanted one route, and the Russians and their pals wanted a different route. The tug of war wound up ripping the country apart.

Law requires enforcement. That means an enforcement arm, and a means to fund it. No country has offered up part of it's sovereignty to make that possible.

So where the rubber hits the road, there's a lot of wishful thinking going on. People that aren't interested in such things have never looked into it. Even when we are dealing with an obvious atrocity, enforcement never happens before the accused is out of power. (They may be an exception to that, if there is, the exception proves the rule. And, of course, a major power like the USA would never submit to the authority of the International Court on a major issue.)

Btw, the violence started a decade ago, before we got directly involved.

One of our goals should be creating islands of stability. Helping the Kurds can do that. We did it to use them, but that is short sighted. So if I was running the show, I would build a huge refugee camp in Turkey. No, Erdogan would love having someone take a lot of them off his hands. It would be another island of stability. Call it the first rule of being human, you help by helping.

So, I gave you the chance to discuss this when I mentioned Realpolitik. Clearly, you cannot.

At least watch a minute of that video, seriously, you will love it.
#15158747
B0ycey wrote:Wooooaaaahhhhh there. International law does work like that and the only reason it doesn't is because powerful nations such as the US break international law.

Yes. And the US and other large powers enforce it on smaller countries. You get props for honesty and consistency there.

B0ycey wrote:The idea the West is in the ME to retain peace is frankly laughable. Perhaps they have a moral duty in Iraq now, but considering the Iraqi government voted to kick them out when Soleimani was killed means they may well outstay their welcome even there.

They also voted not to give the US a status of forces (sofa) agreement, precipitating Obama to pull troops out of Iraq, leading to the vacuum filled by ISIS.

late wrote:Foreign affairs are beyond the intellectual reach of most, and that includes presidents.

Ah... So you agree with me, but won't admit that the State Department endeavors to make policy without the direction of the president, because they think they are smarter than the president...

B0ycey wrote:Not only did the UN say Americas involvement was illegal, it wasn't even a conflict zone until the West sent weapons to the Kurds. America thought there was enough movement to topple Assad and once Russia backed him the opportunity was over.

Again, for you avid readers out there, "Zero Footprint" provides a bit of insight into the Obama administration's thinking. They thought not having a US weapons footprint would offer some kind of deniability as to the types of people they were backing. It not only led to the worst humanitarian crisis since WWII, it also led to Benghazi. Benghazi led to a number of things. First, it showed Putin that Obama was a paper tiger--and in Obama's second term, Putin seized Crimea without so much as firing a shot--strategically brilliant. Second, it led to Republicans inquiring about Hillary Clinton's security measures. In trying to gain access to her State Department emails, they discovered that she ran her own email server for the Secretary of State in her home in Chappaqua, NY--a pretty serious security violation by itself. When they requested her emails, she denied them access. Similarly, as a matter of law, she was required to turn over emails to the State Department. She ended up deleting about 30k emails, which she claimed were personal. She claimed that she hadn't sent classified information over that email system, when in fact she had. Then, the FBI itself helped her destroy her communications devices--an act that if done by anyone else would have been considered destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice. Arguably, in addition to her dislikability, this scandal led to the election of Donald Trump.

As Sir Walter Scott wrote in a very Shakespearian way:

Sir Walter Scott wrote:Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive


jimjam wrote:Worship him, do a lot of screaming and flag waving and show up dressed like this at one of his peaceful free speech riots:

You are still misunderstanding it after all these years. They are doing what the left used to champion doing: questioning authority.

I'll give you a completely unrelated anecdotal example: in taking a short trip this weekend, I decided to drive to the airport because my flight was leaving at 7:00 a.m., BART is sometimes slow, and I'd be cutting it short. So I drove to SFO. I thought about paying the toll, because I only had $100 bills. Then, I thought, "They aren't taking the tolls now, because of Covid." Which got me thinking--like a systems engineer. If they can photograph my license plate, use OCR to get my license number, look up my address, and then send me the bill--not only do they not need toll takers generally, they don't even need the FastTrak transponder system either. That has been true for many years. Yet, rather than using that approach in the public interest, they hired toll takers at top dollar, and used criminal law to prosecute "toll evasion". Much of what passes for government these days is nothing more than a scam pulled on tax payers, and frankly they are tired of a professional class of politicians constantly lying to them. That's not just US presidents, that comes down to toll districts for bridges too.

Want to build something like open air, hop-on-hop-off cable cars in your city? Can't do it. Why? It's not safe. So why is it safe in San Francisco? Grandfather clauses. Preserving history, etc. It's all 100% bullshit. It's about constraining who can supply a service to the tax payers, and safety, longevity in the market place, capitalization, etc. are all created as barriers to entry to help big companies at the expense of smaller more efficient companies and at the expense of taxpayers. After awhile, after years and decades of life, you come to the conclusion that everything politicians say is a lie, the media is just amplifying the lies, and you have to figure out what's really going on yourself. Some people don't have the appetite for that either, and they pick up weapons. Right now, you can look at this as cosplay, but there is a deeper reason it is happening.

JohnRawls wrote:Trump has discredited himself enough.

That's an establishment phrase, and it means nothing to Trump supporters. It only works on people who get their information and views from the media--in a country where 75% think the media is political propaganda and mostly dishonest.

JohnRawls wrote:It would be great if he runs again against Biden which is almost 100% defeat for Trump :D

Do you really think Biden is going to finish out his term? The establishment has wanted a female president for a long time now. I don't think they can resist pushing Biden out in a year or two.

Rancid wrote:Old white people that want to play commando.

Cosplay for now. However, as larpers (and like a a lot of Antifa types who have their 'medic' at the ready), many of them have military training. So for this "armed insurrection", where few if any brought weapons to the Capitol, the FBI is paranoid about their QRFs and so forth. The reality is that the US government isn't popular anymore, because it rules against the interests of the people and without their consent. A veneer of democracy is not a democracy. Just listen to what late said about foreign policy being too intellectually demanding for mere elected presidents.

late wrote:Syria is a failed state.

There was a big struggle over a gas pipeline. We wanted one route, and the Russians and their pals wanted a different route. The tug of war wound up ripping the country apart.

It sounds like a self-serving description proffered by energy interests.

late wrote:So if I was running the show, I would build a huge refugee camp in Turkey.

Violating the boarders of yet another sovereign state, and a NATO ally no less. See how smart you are, and yet you don't understand why the US government is hated around the world and by its own citizens.
By B0ycey
#15158748
So, I gave you the chance to discuss this when I mentioned Realpolitik. Clearly, you cannot.


Perhaps I only wanted to discuss what I quoted you of, nothing more and nothing else. As of yet, you haven't addressed the thing you wrote and what I quoted you for initially. I can only assume that is because you know what you wrote was wrong (or fiction) so now you want to discuss why America needs to remain there. This is how you began your response....

late wrote:Syria is a failed state.


By which I would say it isn't. Or that perhaps it is a divided state that was brought into civil war by American arms and false promises of a Kurdish state. The irony now is the Kurds are working with Assad as the Americans abandoned them and as such as about as united now as before the conflict began. Which begs why the US are there at all now. Assad isn't going anywhere and is trying his best to bring his country back into one state. Or as you would say a successful state perhaps. If the US goal was stability in Syria they wouldn't even be there. The attack against them wasn't even Syrian but Iranian rebels. And I doubt Biden even wants to topple Assad in any case. When was the last time you heard his name in the media? So if we accept that, then why do you think America is in Syria? Not the fiction but facts now. The Kurds have basically been left to fight there own battles against Turkey and Assad, Turkey is a NATO ally in any case, we haven't heard of any more gas attacks since the French, UK and American strike sent a warning to Assad to change is war methods, the Kurds and Assad are now working together... so the only issue seems to be proxies that are coming from Iraq (where America could station themselves if they wanted).

Basically what I am saying is there hasn't been any reason to remain in Syria for a while now and that Trump should have kept his promise. But I suspect his military spelt out what that meant in terms of lost of influence and control in the ME for America. So they remain and will remain there under Biden making the country unstable. But even if we accept that all, that still doesn't answer why America broke international law to begin with. Or perhaps it does. Geopolitics and not stability.
By late
#15158752
blackjack21 wrote:

Ah... So you agree with me, but won't admit that the State Department endeavors to make policy without the direction of the president, because they think they are smarter than the president...






A century ago, an ambassador had a lot of independence, and real power. There was no alternative. After WW2, the empire and secure communications combined to put a leash on ambassadors, and to a large degree, the State Dept.

Occasionally there are wildly complicated situations, like the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, that cannot be micromanaged. But most White Houses exert more influence than they should, given their limited competence.

In the future, you should assume we do not agree. The idea is laughable.
By B0ycey
#15158754
late wrote:Fantasy it is.


That is your rebuttal? :lol:

One lines are frowned upon on here. They are even worse when they have zero context. Clearly you have no argument. On your previous post nor your latest one. Perhaps the only fantasy here is you believing what you are told to believe and not questioned more. Besides, why do you think America is making Syria stable now? Or trying to. Not only is it worth a laugh, if that is what you believe it will interesting to read why. I will find out if you are a sucker for propaganda.
#15158758
late wrote:A century ago, an ambassador had a lot of independence, and real power. There was no alternative. After WW2, the empire and secure communications combined to put a leash on ambassadors, and to a large degree, the State Dept.

Holy mother of little baby Jesus! Congratulations! You said something really intelligent! This was also very true of military officers--not so much lieutenants, but probably Lt. Cols. and higher. They often conducted foreign policy too. For example, Commodore Matthew Perry in Japan. Much of the treaties during the Indian wars were conducted by US military officers. Military officers were often appointed governors of territories as well. Even a lowly second lieutenant is in fact a representative of the president of the United States. General Douglas MacArthur received Japan's formal surrender.

late wrote:In the future, you should assume we do not agree.

I assumed that long ago.
By late
#15158762
B0ycey wrote:
That is your rebuttal?



Observation, not argumentation.

In the 1970s, I was more like you than you are. Ever been a member of a human rights group? I have.

Foreign affairs are insanely complicated. Most politicians lack the time or the inclination to get into it in detail. Even worse, there are too many layers of bureaucracy, and the rewards tend to go to the supporters of empire.

The end result can get badly screwed up. You can find few better examples than when Republicans forced the CIA, in the 80s, to teach Islamic extremists how to be effective international terrorists.

If you want a taste of the real thing, pick up a copy of Foreign Affairs Quarterly. It's not serious foreign affairs. Guys like you and me don't know enough to read the real thing. I think of FAQ as being like a watering hole in the jungle. Everybody goes there, they all argue for their position. The quality of the writing is all over the map. They even let Nixon write a couple articles. But it does give you a small taste of the vast diversity and complexity we have to deal with.
User avatar
By Beren
#15158766
blackjack21 wrote:Biden is barely into his second month as president and already the bombs are flying.

But why are the bombs flying? I wonder if people asking for Trump's blood have already asked that.

blackjack21's own source, Breitbart wrote:The PMF are intensely anti-American and have refocused much of their efforts to attacking U.S. troops and assets, particularly in Iraq where they are formally part of the military. The attack Biden used to justify his strikes was a bombing of American assets in Iraqi Kurdistan last week, for which a small militia known as the Saraya Awlia al-Dam, or “Guardians of Blood Brigades,” took credit. The group is believed to be part of the PMF. The Agence France-Presse (AFP), citing American and Iraqi officials, described the group as a “smokescreen” for KH and other jihadists in the PMF.

About the PMF, Wikipedia wrote:The Popular Mobilization Forces, also known as the People's Mobilization Committee and the Popular Mobilization Units, is an Iraqi state-sponsored umbrella organization composed of some 40 militias that are mostly Shia Muslim groups, but also include Sunni Muslim, Christian, and Yazidi groups.

So Biden is barely into his second month as president and already tested or provoked by Iran and most likely China.

blackjack21 wrote:Donald Trump is going to be around for awhile...

Sure, we just don't know if how it's going to end finally.
By B0ycey
#15158771
late wrote:Foreign affairs are insanely complicated.


I don't think it is that complicated. The ME has oil, America wants to control that interest. That isn't that hard to understand. Especially when America would have learnt lessons from Suez and what happens if you don't have control on this key resource especially.

Besides, have you ever questioned to yourself why Syria is so special? Why America wants to help the people there. Not Yemen, but Syria. Or that in Africa we have more civil war, unrest and corruption along with genocide and tinpot dictators than in the ME yet not a single "war on terror" in Africa especially. We don't need to understand what contracts rely on what or who bends over first or who buys what from whom to understand the specifics of foreign affairs. That is every countries (so this isn't unique to America) foreign policy is what is best for their own nation, that all lies become facts and since Suez, covert missions of deceit has been replaced with missions of humanity. We can't just invade any more. It is either WMDs, human rights violations, democracy or election fraud. And when we are there, these issues never seems to be resolved despite being there and as such we must remain there even longer. And as such we are still there and we needn't be. Especially when we had no right to be there initially. That is foreign policy. I understand it more than you think.
Last edited by B0ycey on 28 Feb 2021 19:21, edited 2 times in total.
#15158772
@blackjack21

The fact that you even consider the idea that the establishment somehow will replace Biden with Kamala just because they want a female president means that you drink too much cool aid. The only realistic way that can happen is that if Biden becomes sick to the point of not being able to fullfill his duties probably due to his age. That is rather unlikely. But yeah, too much cool aid. I mean, just listen to yourself. :hmm:

@Rancid

I mean, i understand the sentiment. The Republican party didn't care enough to bury Trump so they will not get another chance any time soon i suppose. Meaning that he will probably run in some form or the other. But honestly, if Biden doesn't get any health issues then he will pulverize Trump 350+ the 2nd time.
By late
#15158773
B0ycey wrote:
I don't think it is that complicated.



Go to a University library. Ask where they keep the journals on foreign affairs. Pick one up, which one doesn't matter. Try to read it.

Thanks, got a good laugh out of that one.
By B0ycey
#15158774
late wrote:Go to a University library. Ask where they keep the journals on foreign affairs. Pick one up, which one doesn't matter. Try to read it.

Thanks, got a good laugh out of that one.


Perhaps I should also pick up a book on pregnancy. Which one, it doesn't matter. And from that I must deduce that sex must be complicated. I don't need to know what position someone likes to know the goal is to have children.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15158775
JohnRawls wrote:I mean, i understand the sentiment. The Republican party didn't care enough to bury Trump so they will not get another chance any time soon i suppose. Meaning that he will probably run in some form or the other. But honestly, if Biden doesn't get any health issues then he will pulverize Trump 350+ the 2nd time.


Maybe, but I'd simply rather see Trumpism fade away. It won't, given what we're seeing in the CPAC.
Last edited by Rancid on 28 Feb 2021 19:34, edited 1 time in total.
By late
#15158776
B0ycey wrote:
Perhaps I should also pick up a book on pregnancy. Which one, it doesn't matter. And from that I must deduce that sex must be complicated. I don't need to know what position someone likes to know the goal is to have children.



In that case, try Egypt, that's where Denial is...
User avatar
By Beren
#15158778
JohnRawls wrote:@blackjack21

The fact that you even consider the idea that the establishment somehow will replace Biden with Kamala just because they want a female president means that you drink too much cool aid. The only realistic way that can happen is that if Biden becomes sick to the point of not being able to fullfill his duties probably due to his age. That is rather unlikely. But yeah, too much cool aid. I mean, just listen to yourself. :hmm:

@Rancid

I mean, i understand the sentiment. The Republican party didn't care enough to bury Trump so they will not get another chance any time soon i suppose. Meaning that he will probably run in some form or the other. But honestly, if Biden doesn't get any health issues then he will pulverize Trump 350+ the 2nd time.

The most likely scenario is that Biden won't run for reelection and will rather endorse his VP, who'll supposedly be a well-established potential presidential candidate by then. Meanwhile, Trump will prepare for his second coming like crazy and will run for president anyway. Even Mitt Romney predicts Trump would win the 2024 G.O.P. nomination if he ran for president. And it won't be a cakewalk for anyone, most likely Harris, running against him.
#15158779
Beren wrote:The most likely scenario is that Biden won't run for reelection and will rather endorse his VP, who'll supposedly be a well-established potential presidential candidate by then. Meanwhile, Trump will prepare for his second coming like crazy and will run for president anyway. Even Mitt Romney predicts Trump would win the 2024 G.O.P. nomination if he ran for president. And it won't be a cakewalk for anyone, most likely Harris, running against him.


Harris has chances of loosing against Trump because she is a women. Literally most white male democratic candidates will beat Trump so I do not see a point of risking it with Harris.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

If there is footage showing a permanent battalion […]

Oh please post those too :lol: Very obvious p[…]

No, it does not. It is governed by the rather vagu[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we[…]