I don't look at pro-Trump content, so I don't know how deluded they are.

But all of the left-wing news outlets produce a steady drizzle of little distortions. Anyone who watches MSNBC and just nods at everything they say is deluded enough: enough to be incapable of an unbiased assessment.

Does it matter who's worse?

Sometimes a Trump fuck-up is just a Trump fuck-up...

But for all the ways the anti-Trumpers contort their principles in order to condemn him in every possible way, Trump supporters put on a much more grotesque display of hypocrisy and ignorance.

Why do they scramble to defend everything Trump has ever done or said? Clearly, if anything, Trump has directly robbed America of what dignity and respect it had left. Are they just pot committed? Stubborn?

I thought you guys were "patriots", not Patriot's fan boys..

Chicken little and the boy who cried wolf come to mind. The anti-Trumpist media and their base have been claiming economic disaster, the next Hitler, fascism and nuclear war for years. They feared him so much that they abused FISA to spy on his campaign, ruined the ethics of journalism, abused the constitution and impeachment and divided the country to undo the past election

It’s easy to lampoon a public figure, especially when there is a corporate, social and economic benefit for doing so. It’s a trite more difficult to stand against an unruly, unhinged mob of chicken littles who claim they can peer into the future and see our demise. The problem is their prognostications have been proven false every time, so much so that when a real wolf shows up (Soleimani?), they defend the the wolf in order to decry the sheepdog defending them.

STOP THE PRESS! STOP THE PRESS! STOP THE PRESS! STOP THE PRESS!

Iraq votes to expel US troops from country after Qasem Soleimani killing
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/iraq-votes-to-expel-us-troops-from-country-after-qasem-soleimani-killing/ar-BBYDpcA



Let me try to express this in terms the USA can understand:
GOP to Iraq: "Killing-Iran-leader-when-we-are-not-at-war-with-Iran-is-NOT-ASSASSINATION! We-are-the daleks-and-you-will-obey-or-we-will-EXTERMINATE-you!"
But wait! Doctor Who is here! "Halloo! So what's all this then? Total world domination again, hm?"

I find this especially funny after all the people complaining how Iran has been evil because it is an ally with Iraq, so therefore we are entitled to violate international law. And now OUR OWN PUPPET GOVERNMENT wants us out of Iraq, which they really have to do to keep peace with their neighbor! Which we can't complain about, because we gave them right to rule and assassinated someone there.

And it's exactly how politics work in the Middle East.What a dumbass thing to do, Mr President.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt. Back to your regular programming....

Anti-Trumpism leads one to reserve their finger-wagging for Trump while allowing them to remain silent on Iranian theocrats and terrorists. Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse.

I can't speak for Democrats, but all the anti Trump folk in the UK and they are in the majority, do not remain silent on the nutters in Tehran, they know all to well what the power brokers in the Middle East are like. We get to much focus from foreign correspondents in the media, it's like an obsession.

We know that the whole region is a tinder box just waiting for someone to strike a match. We also know that Trump is a bumbling fool with his finger on the big red button. He is so bumbling that as he is trying to take the match out of the box, he just keeps fumbling and dropping them all on the floor. He'll have to get one of his hawks with their fingers in war trade investments to do it for him.

He doesn't even realise that all he needs to do to start the conflagration in the Middle East is to tweet some anti Islamic insults.

Oh, wait a minute he has tweeted Islamic insults. What a great US statesman (not), oh how the mighty US has fallen.

Anti-Trumpism leads one to reserve their finger-wagging for Trump while allowing them to remain silent on Iranian theocrats and terrorists. — NOS4A2

I think this misses the point. If it were as simple as taking out bad people then I'm sure many would be in favour of taking out Kim Jong-un, Xi, Duterte, Putin, etc. But the reality is that there would be consequences that just aren't worth whatever would be gained. In this case people are concerned that provoking Iran risks a conflict that will cause more damage than whatever it is Soleimani would have been responsible for were he alive.

But when your bureaucrats and globalists told us they created the end of history, they gave us the clash of civilizations instead. Trump is left to clean up their mess and he’s doing a damn good job of it. — NOS4A2

The Fukuyaman moment of "End of History" was a different kind of hubris, but still hubris just like 'Manifest Destiny' with similar ideas of inescapable outcomes and inherent virtue. It's there perhaps with the hubristic idea of globalization and economic growth as a cure for everthing, which especially was (and is) rampant in the EU. The EU simply assumed that "all you need is economic growth, and that comes through integration, intergration and more integration and also through globalization". Well, globalization isn't only blessing and integration is difficult and isn't a cure for all. That the EU is a bag of independent nations with their own cultures didn't matter to the internationalist elites either: Let's just assume everything can be answered by bureaucrats in Brussells. Let's create EU unity with a flag and stealing from Beethoven "Ode to Joy" to be the "anthem" of the EU. Not so. People relate to their nation states, not the EU.

And it wasn't either so in the US. Not only was the Financial Crisis, but also so the "socialism to the rich" and the slow growth afterwards that lead to Trump.

The only serious disagreement which we have (which we I think we are totally OK with) is just how capable Trump is. Populism is something that becomes problematic once in power. Not everything in the "old order" was bad, just as a leader has to get people with different objectives and agendas to work together. Trump sure stirs up the soup, I wouldn't how much cleaner everything is really after him.

That’s the way it should be, in my opinion. The US needs to step away from the world stage, and especially leave that pile of dust to its inhabitants. We no longer require their oil, their workers, their ancient tribalisms. — NOS4A2

Careful what you wish for.

Have you ever considered just how much of the affluence of America IS BASED ON IT BEING IN THE SOLE SUPERPOWER ROLE? Have you ever thought that the whole International system is built around you? Or you just think it's natural because you are just so inherently awesome and there simply cannot be any kind of other system?

What you desperately need is the US dollar having the role it has now. Yet it could be replaced by a mix of currencies, where the USD is just one important currency among others. Just saying.

And now OUR OWN PUPPET GOVERNMENT wants us out of Iraq, which they really have to do to keep peace with their neighbor! — ernestm

You noticed it too? Not something that is on the first page, but ought to be. Trump is already contemplating sanctions against Iraq if they go through with this.

But hey, the US overthrew Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and so now the new Serbia is ...an ally of Russia. So it's not the first time, especially in a country that you have bombed.

In this case people are concerned that provoking Iran risks a conflict that will cause more damage than whatever it is Soleimani would have been responsible for were he alive. — Michael

The provocation here wasn't coming from the US, it was coming from Iran. I think it's likely Iran's recent boldness is a consequence of America's erratic foreign policy. IOW, this is part of the price for abandoning the Kurds.

Iranian aggression is tied to religious zealotry. Maybe part of the problem is that non-religious people are out of touch with the depth of emotion tied up in not only religious feeling, but a long history of religious suppression. It turns into bloodlust that at its root has nothing to do with political boundaries.

Maybe British Isles people could get a hint of it from thinking about bloodshed in Northern Ireland. Or not.

Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse. — NOS4A2

Isn't that politics-as-usual? Never give credit to the other side for anything good, and always assign blame for anything bad.

The ultimate irony is that no politician has done this to the degree that Trump has. Would you like to be reminded about the various attacks he's made? Oh, that's right - you don't care what he says. Oddly, you do care about what his political opponents say.

I think this misses the point. If it were as simple as taking out bad people then I'm sure many would be in favour of taking out Kim Jong-un, Xi, Duterte, Putin, etc. But the reality is that there would be consequences that just aren't worth whatever would be gained. In this case people are concerned that provoking Iran risks a conflict that will cause more damage than whatever it is Soleimani would have been responsible for were he alive.

It’s also a big slap in the face to Iranian aggression.

Iran sabotages two oil tankers, Trump does not retaliate. Iran captures British oil tanker, Trump does not retaliate. Iran captures US drone, Trump does not retaliate. Iran attacks Saudi Oil field, Trump does not retaliate. Iran attacks US embassy, Trump finally retaliates. Now people are concerned about provoking conflict.

Isn't that politics-as-usual? Never give credit to the other side for anything good, and always assign blame for anything bad.

The ultimate irony is that no politician has done this to the degree that Trump has. Would you like to be reminded about the various attacks he's made? Oh, that's right - you don't care what he says. Oddly, you do care about what his political opponents say.

No, I don’t care what they say. But I know you’d just love to reiterate trumps speech and thought crimes because it’s really all you guys have.

Yeah.

To declare this general as a legitimate target and not be considered assassinated by other countries, wouldn't they have to hold an international tribunal and declare him a war criminal? I don;t know the details of that, but it seems to me it doesn't matter what his past history in Iraq was, nor does it matter what he was plotting to do (it's not as if the USA doesn't make plans to attack Iran too). He's now a leader in Iran, and killing him pre-emptively sets a horrid precedent. At least Milosevic had already been declared a war criminal by the International court in the EU.

So we can bludgeon around the world and kill anyone we consider a threat? Who's next on the assassination list?

If this is what we do, this raises some serious concerns about the poison attack on Kim Jong Un's brother or whoever it was. Can we do so covertly and blame another country too?

wouldn't they have to hold an international tribunal and declare him a war criminal? — ernestm

International tribunals give bad vibes to Trump supporters.

Besides, Trump doesn't care about all that humbug of international law and isn't in the business of forming alliances, working with other countries and all that nonsense. :down:

America first! MAGA! :up:

You don't seem to have read the article I gave you. It references analyses that estimate impact of NAFTA, so they're referring to net increase in GDP and jobs vs where we would have been without NAFTA. I applaud skepticism, but I do not applaud dismissing analysis simply because it doesn't have the answer you want. — Relativist

Don't be so flippant. Post the work, show the work, make the argument you want to make based upon the work. I've a very strong feeling that there is nothing in that report that could be used to show the negative affects/effects that a number of different pieces of legislation has had on a very large swathe of the American population.

If you do not have a good grasp upon the adverse harmful affects/effects, then there is no way to be able to perform a comparison contrast between those negative and the positives that you seem to find relevant. Higher GDP - after implementation of certain pieces of legislation - is not a measure of whether or not very large swathes of Americans have been directly financially harmed as a result.

There are far fewer good paying jobs with good benefits for entry level and/or non college educated people. Of course there are more jobs, if for no other reason this is easily proven and supported by the fact that so many folk have had to take on multiple jobs as a means to make it. Often times even when multiple jobs are being worked, the person still does not make as much, and thus cannot live as comfortably as before when there were good paying jobs.

You cannot look at GDP and job numbers as a means to establish the unnecessary and demonstrable financial harm that has been suffered by countless Americans, and in a myriad of ways as a result of trade agreements. You cannot look at the increase in low paying jobs without benefits as a means to say that there is a net positive effect/affect upon a very large swathe of the American population. You cannot neglect the facts.

You've also not touched upon the part about the US government allowing it's citizen business owners to treat workers in ways that are illegal in the US. You've also not touched upon the fact that by allowing products resulting from slavery and horrible worker abuses(human rights violations), the US government has not only harmed Americans, but is sponsoring such unacceptable inhumane treatment of humans by virtue of incentivizing and allowing the practices. You ignore these flagrant failures of responsibility of elected officials as a means to lay claim and/or argue for cheaper goods, higher GDP, and more total job numbers???

:brow:

I want the crystal ball those economists used to predict what the US would have been like had manufacturing not been systematically and slowly dismantled.

That would be a prized possession.

Don't be so flippant. Post the work, show the work, make the argument you want to make based upon the work. I've a very strong feeling that there is nothing in that report that could be used to show the negative affects/effects that a number of different pieces of legislation has had on a very large swathe of the American population. — creativesoul

So, instead of reading the report I gave you, you're going to make assumptions on what it says based on your "very strong feelings." And yet, you claim I'm the one being flippant.

You cannot look at GDP and job numbers as a means to establish the unnecessary and demonstrable financial harm that has been suffered by countless Americans — creativesoul

I never denied that some individuals have been hurt. How many jobs have been lost is impossible to day, because some of the job losses attributed to NAFTA would have been lost anyway - manufacturing has been shifting out of the US for a long time; NAFTA probably sped it up, but it didn't originate it. The report you didn't read discusses this.

What you overlook is that NAFTA also created some jobs, and raised the income for some people. So some people are better off, and others are worse off. You seem blind to that, and focus entirely on those who are worse off. Sorry, but I think it would be absurd to avoid taking actions that are in the general interest because it will negatively impact a relatively small number of people. Businesses strive for "efficiency" and efficiency entails producing more for less money. Automation does that, and so does utilizing cheaper labor in locations outside the US. Protectionism to prevent utilizing cheaper labor makes as much sense as forbidding automation.

That said, I do think it appropriate to provide remedy for those who ARE negatively impacted - e.g. training and education, perhaps moving expenses to move to areas where there are more, or better, jobs. THAT would make it win-win for everyone.

No, I don’t care what they say. — NOS4A2

Then why make the following post:

Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse. — NOS4A2

You're playing exactly the same partisan game as the people you criticize.

I know you’d just love to reiterate trumps speech and thought crimes because it’s really all you guys have. — NOS4A2

Unlike you, I think what are leaders say does matter. My primary issue with Trump is not "thought crimes" - it's that he's arrogant and stupid. This is regularly shown in his tweets, rally-streams of consciousness, and his Fox interviews. IMO, anyone who doesn't see this is either blinded by faith in Trump or they are are even dumber than he is.

Iranian troops will be marching on Washington anytime now. Pray for us.

Or maybe they'll just smuggle in a suitcase bomb to NYC. That would suck.

Then why make the following post:

Because it is true.

You're playing exactly the same partisan game as the people you criticize.

I haven’t criticized anyone for being partisan.

Unlike you, I think what are leaders say does matter. My primary issue with Trump is not "thought crimes" - it's that he's arrogant and stupid. This is regularly shown in his tweets, rally-streams of consciousness, and his Fox interviews. IMO, anyone who doesn't see this is either blinded by faith in Trump or they are are even dumber than he is.

You don’t like the way he talks. I get it. But if a good talker is your standard for good leadership than any actor who can read a script will suffice as your ideal politician. That frightens me because talking good is all some people can do.

Now you can be sure. — Wallows

Iran said on Saturday it was now capable of raising uranium enrichment past the 20% level and had launched advanced centrifuge machines in further breaches of commitments to limit its nuclear activity under a 2015 deal with world powers.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/iran-further-breaches-nuclear-deal-says-it-can-exceed-20-enrichment-idUSKCN1VS05B

IAEA confirms Tehran's announcement last week that it began refining uranium, while EU considers reimposing sanctions.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/iran-breaches-nuclear-deal-enrichment-push-watchdog-191111183454063.html

They’ve been consistently breaching the deal.

↪Relativist
Then why make the following post:

Because it is true.

You're playing exactly the same partisan game as the people you criticize.

I haven’t criticized anyone for being partisan. — NOS4A2

What you do is to respond perceived partisan comments with your own partisan comments. It's a waste of time. I try to avoid that sort of thing. For instance, my view on Trump's stupidity is based on examining facts.

Unlike you, I think what are leaders say does matter. My primary issue with Trump is not "thought crimes" - it's that he's arrogant and stupid. This is regularly shown in his tweets, rally-streams of consciousness, and his Fox interviews. IMO, anyone who doesn't see this is either blinded by faith in Trump or they are even dumber than he is.


You don’t like the way he talks. I get it. But if a good talker is your standard for good leadership than any actor who can read a script will suffice as your ideal politician. That frightens me because talking good is all some people can do. — NOS4A2

You're deflecting from the point I made, just like all loyal partisans. This isn't a matter of merely "not liking" what he says, it's a matter of being alarmed at how stupid he must be to say them, and how stupid and/or blindly loyal his followers are for not seeing this.

They’ve been consistently breaching the deal.

They were never going to satisfy the hawks in Washington. There is no way to stop the war, because eventually the Iranians will get their nuclear bomb and the Yanks can't allow that. Trump has been hoodwinked into giving it the go ahead, he said repeatedly that he didn't want any more foreign interventions, but he is going to have the war because he's been told by his advisors that there's no other way to prevent the nuclear bomb and he's to weak to stand up to them.

The shame is that Johnson will be forced to support him and send British troops, because Johnson is now a lap dog to Trump. Unless the public opinion in the UK against the war becomes so great that it brings down the government.

They’ve been consistently breaching the deal. — NOS4A2

They were complying with the deal before Trump dumped it. This was the first bullet fired in the war because it backed Iran into a corner.

What you do is to respond perceived partisan comments with your own partisan comments. It's a waste of time. I try to avoid that sort of thing. For instance, my view on Trump's stupidity is based on examining facts.

I suppose he just bungled his way into the most powerful position in the world. Meanwhile all your smooth-talking, private/public view lawyers are dropping like flies.

You're deflecting from the point I made, just like all loyal partisans. This isn't a matter of merely "not liking" what he says, it's a matter of being alarmed at how stupid he must be to say them, and how stupid and/or blindly loyal his followers are for not seeing this.

So what? Your obsequiousness to intellectuals and smooth talkers alarms me.

There is no war, but if there is, we’ll be important allies as we always have. It’s far better than appeasing a terrorist state with money and grovelling. Hopefully Boris will bring a spine back to what was once a powerful nation.

↪Relativist

What you do is to respond perceived partisan comments with your own partisan comments. It's a waste of time. I try to avoid that sort of thing. For instance, my view on Trump's stupidity is based on examining facts.

I suppose he just bungled his way into the most powerful position in the world. — NOS4A2

Not at all - I'm not suggesting he's low IQ. Rather, he has the sort of superficial knowledge of the world that pundits possess (like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin), and that point of view has a big audience. The stupidity lies in thinking there's no need for more in depth analysis and knowledge, and thinking you know better than everyone else...and in exercising an extreme amount of confirmation bias, so that he accepts any conspiracy theory that comes along that confirms his prior beliefs, and his unwillingness to accept expert advice that is contrary to his ignorant gut feel.

So what? Your obsequiousness to intellectuals and smooth talkers alarms me. — NOS4A2

I respect the opinion of authorities, and it is irrational to deny them solely because you don't like their conclusions. Authorities can be wrong - obviously they aren't always in agreement, but accepting a non-authority demagogue(especially one that so frequently spouts untruths) over an actual authority based solely on faith in the demagogue - that's scary. And that gets back to why it matters what Trump says: there's no good reason to trust either his judgment nor what he says.

Hopefully Boris will bring a spine back to what was once a powerful nation. — NOS4A2

I think Europe in general has lost the capacity for self-determination. I don't think Boris can alter that.

Not at all - I'm not suggesting he's low IQ. Rather, he has the sort of superficial knowledge of the world that pundits possess (like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin), and that point of view has a big audience. The stupidity lies in thinking there's no need for more in depth analysis and knowledge, and thinking you know better than everyone else...and in exercising an extreme amount of confirmation bias, so that he accepts any conspiracy theory that comes along that confirms his prior beliefs, and his unwillingness to accept expert advice that is contrary to his ignorant gut feel.

His gut feelings have done a better job than any sober, technocratic deliberation. They think and claim to know better but I don’t think that’s the case. All the over-educated, effete people know how to do is talk, talk, talk. What have they built? What have they made? What else have they done?

I respect the opinion of authorities, and it is irrational to deny them solely because you don't like their conclusions. Authorities can be wrong - obviously they aren't always in agreement, but accepting a non-authority demagogue(especially one that so frequently spouts untruths) over an actual authority based solely on faith in the demagogue - that's scary. And that gets back to why it matters what Trump says: there's no good reason to trust either his judgment nor what he says.

Name one prediction regarding Trump’s presidency that an “authority” has gotten correct, because I don’t think they have any authority anymore, and perhaps never did. People who can spout off facts prove only that they know how to recite facts, but not much else. Follow them if you wish, but I would much rather follow someone with the experience of life, not the experience of a library.

I think Europe in general has lost the capacity for self-determination. I don't think Boris can alter that.

I think if they detach themselves from Brussels they might not have the choice to do otherwise, a sink or swim kind of moment.

I think if they detach themselves from Brussels they might not have the choice to do otherwise, a sink or swim kind of moment. — NOS4A2

I'm assuming it's going to be swim.

His gut feelings have done a better job than any sober, technocratic deliberation. They think and claim to know better but I don’t think that’s the case. All the over-educated, effete people know how to do is talk, talk, talk. What have they built? What have they made? What else have they done? — NOS4A2

His "gut feel" has resulted in such things as:

- a stalling to real immigration reform.
- damaged relations with allies
- damaged Ukraine internally and with respect to Russia
- the death of hundreds of Kurdish allies - and demonstrated the untrustworthiness of the US
- created a crisis with Iran
- damaged relations with Iraq
- threats to removing health care coverage for millions
- failed to address the impending funding crisis for social security
- created an unnecessary, inappropriate, and damaging controversy with application of the code of military justice
- exacerbated political/ideological divisions within the US
- promotion of crazy conspiracy theories

What have experts done? Over the decades, they have provided sound advice that enables poltical leaders to progress the country in positive ways - and the country HAS advanced. Consider the trade deals that Trump has blasted out of ignorance and/or political expediency. What has been their net effect?

Name one prediction regarding Trump’s presidency that an “authority” has gotten correct — NOS4A2

Most expert predictions relate to the long term - like the long term unsustainability of these high levels of deficit spending, the long term damage to international relations, and of course - to climate change.
But some shorter term predictions have also borne out: experts predicted Trump's actions in Syria would result in the death of Kurds (which has been borne out) and that this will have the long term effect of increasing distrust of America (which seems indisputable). Experts disagreed with Trump's prediction of 6% GDP grown. Experts predicted that termination of NAFTA would be severely damaging to the economy - fortunately this didn't occur, and it was never likely, but expert analysis has always shown that freer trade is in the general interest (contrary to Tump's stated beliefs).