Summit with Putin

[IlliniDave]

Like RFK says in the link brute posted, the majority of whites and blacks DO want to live in harmony, and the media wants to have everyone split up along antiquated lines and bicker. It’s a ridiculous farce.

It is, but unfortunately some people buy it and live it.

[IlliniDave]

The tariffs are intended to coerce European nations to contribute more to NATO.

This wasn't made very clear tbh.
Trump always spoke about Europe non-existent "massive" tariffs as the reason.

That's why I've concluded that with Trump parsing every phrase is not the way to discern what he's up to (and there's mounting evidence that trying to do so causes psychosis ) Who knew that when he started with China and trade, he was (or would be) "encouraging" them to help put pressure on North Korea with the former presumably being leverage. He didn't state that publicly as his intent, and maybe it was a happy accident, but it might have been an actual plan.

As far as him not making his intent with "friends" clear, you can the quote (of a tweet, of course!) in the link below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 5b27ffe9ca

"Take down your tariffs & barriers or we will more than match you!”

Nobody talks about that side of what he says, but that seems to be the way he wants to steer things (i.e., eliminate them). He's not going about it in a way that I approve, or one that I can say unreservedly I support, but the goal is not nefarious.

[Paula]

He didn't state that publicly as his intent, and maybe it was a happy accident, but it might have been an actual plan.

He's not going about it in a way that I approve, or one that I can say unreservedly I support, but the goal is not nefarious.

Happy accidents are wonderful! They are so frivolously unintended.

Talkers and twitterers who fill the void with frivolous words from every perspective are just so lucky to be prone to happy accidents like that because the people who want there to be a goal and want that goal to be non-nefarious can find a quote that confirms their desires.

There is also the yucky fact that those who are prone to happy accidents are also prone to sad ones in equal proportion.

[Riggerjack]

@ BRUTE

Nice post and RFK link!

I despise Trump. I have since the 80's. I finally understand the disdain people had for Reagan, "that two bit actor playing president, badly."

I dislike Trump so much, I have entirely stopped watching the news, was unaware of the PC, haven't seen it, and won't watch it.

And now that I have the mandatory Trump bashing out of the way...

Watching a president, to see how things will go, is Rube move. Did watching Obama tell you anything about how the OSR would reverse on strategic reserves of oil, or that they would choose individual companies to selectively relax the rules for? Did watching Obama talk about how as a Nation, we needed to address this gun problem, clue us in that the ATF would announce their new policies relaxing restrictions on fully automatic weapons, silencers, and "destructive devices"?

Watching the figurehead is a foolish way to see where a ship is sailing. Look to the winds and how the sails are trimmed. Then look at a map.

And to put this foolish president in perspective, let's see what other Presidents accomplished.

Washington bought 47 gallons of beer, 35 gallons of wine, 3 barrels of rum punch, 2 gallons of cider, and a half pint of Brandy, to win a seat in the Virginia Burgess. All that alcohol for fewer than 300 voters. He did it again during his presidential run.

Hamilton and Jefferson fought incessantly over federal abuse of power, each wanted more Federal power, used in different violations of constitutional restrictions.

Lincoln was elected on a platform of partisanship, started with a country sharply divided, then turned a few minor crisis into a full blown civil war, and acted as a "constitutional dictator" , suspending habeas corpus, over the objections of Congress and the supreme Court. 13000 citizens we're imprisoned without trial. He was hated by his own party, see the Wade-Davis Manifesto.
The great emancipator returned freed slaves to their former owners, and the emancipation proclamation only applied to territory he didn't control. He wanted to ship all blacks to Panama, to dig coal for the Navy. The only reason he won reelection in 64 was that the Democrats chose a buffoonish failure (McClellan) who promised peace at any price.

I would take 3 Trump's and the Insane Clown Posse, in series or collectively, over another Lincoln.

So, maybe a little less vitriol for the Buffoon in Chief is in order. Maybe, if we look a little deeper, we could find something good that has happened in the last 2 years. Maybe, when we look back, we will see that 2016-8 has been pretty good- if you are looking at something besides the news and Facebook.

Or maybe not.

[7Wannabe5]

Well, I would note that Trump wants some of the people who voted for him to be free to dig coal too.

[RealPerson]

@Riggerjack

Thanks for the interesting post. I did not know most of the history you described in your post. The last 2 years have been good for me and my family personally, as well as for my city and my state as far as I can tell. I worry that the consequences of some of Trump's actions won't be clear until much later. Just like we are still dealing with the consequences of Bush deciding to invade Iraq.

[Mister Imperceptible]

....Are we sure about not needing Lincoln to preserve the Union?

[Riggerjack]

....Are we sure about not needing Lincoln to preserve the Union?

Well, that's certainly a popular version of what happened. It's what I was taught. It just doesn't seem to match up with what was happening at the time, at all.

I don't come from the south,I didn't go into this research to upend expectations, I was concerned about another civil war, with the open hostility in public, I was seeing.

So I looked into how we went from a Nation, to a civil war, in such a short time. It seems like the only way to support the story I was taught as history is to deeply want to believe in it. Agent Moulder could believe it, I'm sure. I can't.

[Mikeallison]

I despise Trump. I have since the 80's.

That's a bit harsh, his cameo in Home Alone 2 was great

Have you come to a conclusion in your research on a possible civil war? This is a topic that interests me greatly. I think it is still a pretty far flung possibility, but I haven't ruled it out yet. I've noticed in recent polls, about a third of the population thinks we will be there in 5 years, but looking around it seems more hot air than substance. Unless, of course, the war is to be conducted on facebook.

[jennypenny]

@BRUTE--I think the generally accepted principle wrt tariffs and trade deficits (in gov't) is that the goal is an equilibrium where all countries involved are benefitting, not necessarily whether one country is running a deficit. That said, tariffs are a favorite tool of those who view power through an economic lens, not a political one, and they will talk up trade deficits as an excuse for instituting tariffs when they have other reasons for imposing them.

[Riggerjack]

Have you come to a conclusion in your research on a possible civil war?

That the world of 1859 was very different from the one we were taught about, and that while divided, nobody really thought a war was coming. Even most of the secessionists thought if there was a war, it would be short and over quickly. But there was good reason to think it could be handled peacefully.

Lincoln had other ideas. The interests behind Lincoln had much different ideas. Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote, and was being denounced by his own party before a shot was fired.

Google principal of nullification as a start. Then look at the big capital projects of 1820-59, who paid for them, how, and who benefitted. Then look at Senate votes in the late 1850's, to see how agricultural blocks were split. This was the end for the south, and they knew it.

Something bad was going to happen. But nobody thought 1860-4 was what was coming.

And I have no idea where we are going from here, but I have chosen to live deep in blue country, surrounded by military. If war comes, I am not likely to be in the line of fire. And anyone who thinks a war is what we need, doesn't know war, or what we need.

[IlliniDave]

Have you come to a conclusion in your research on a possible civil war?

This wasn't addressed to me, but it is something I give a good deal of thought to. At this point I don't think there will be a civil war, but I do think there may be bloodshed from some isolated individuals either trying to start one, or people that fear one is imminent/impending.

[Mikeallison]

@dave

At first I felt one was right around the corner, but now I'm coming around to where you are, more civil unrest, than war, if anything.

@Riggerjack

Im embarrassingly deficient in my knowledge of the period, I'll have to see where your bread crumbs lead me.

I find your sense of security in a deep blue state perplexing, if we do find ourselves in one, the last place I would want to be is in a densely populated area surrounded by military...unlike the last go around we have a bunch of people completely depended upon a very fragile global infrastructure with some glaring weak spots. I wouldn't be worried so much about being in the line of fire, so much as being SOL, surrounded by a bunch of hungry desperate people.

FEMA doesn't work very well in peace time, if the red parts of the country disrupt shipping and rail, burn the grain, knock out the powergrid, or water pump station/ treatment plants, they won't have to fight the war, people in the cities will do their work for them.

But hey, to each his own. As you say, it's not something anyone would want, I wish I could throw the idea out as preposterous, but everytime I'm dumb enough to read the latest crazy in the news, my mind goes there again. Time to stop reading the news I'm thinking.

[IlliniDave]

Talkers and twitterers who fill the void with frivolous words from every perspective are just so lucky to be prone to happy accidents like that because the people who want there to be a goal and want that goal to be non-nefarious can find a quote that confirms their desires.

That is true hence the old adage: actions speak louder than words, and why I put more stock in what happens than what is said, interpreted, or speculated about. Those who want the goal to be nefarious can just as easily can find words or opinions to confirm their needs. At the same time one doesn't always have the luxury of waiting on the outcome. Sometimes the world is a venue for action rather than a collection of objects. When I buy a piece of fruit I examine all sides of it, smell it, test it's weight in my hand (if it's a grapefruit) or its firmness (if its an apple or peach) and make the best decision I can based on the information I can gather. Sometimes I buy none at all even when they look wonderful at first glance. Sometimes I'll by some even if they look a little dubious at first glance. Everyone has got to follow their own method for ferreting out the truth.

[Mister Imperceptible]

how to unpeel this incendiary onion

[BRUTE]

can humans plz explain metaphor to poor brute. fruit? onions?

[IlliniDave]

Sorry, brute. In mine fruit is just something, in context say a situation/issue which has been partially reported somewhere. If it interests me, by nature I am compelled to examine it from multiple perspectives. Doing that, and admitting it out loud, leaves one open for labeling, shaming, etc. in some circles. It would be easier to pick one group of talking heads, memorize the talking points, and stick to a tribe. But I don't want to walk around seeing the world through a partisan, one-sided perspective any more than I want to leave the grocer's with a piece of rotten fruit in my basket. The incremental steps are not an entirely different process than the one Paula alluded to above where you sift through things and only take what confirms your preconception. The difference lies in why you are looking and what you are looking for.

Mr I will have to tell you about onions.

[7Wannabe5]

“You know what Mr. Bates called me?” Seward shook his head with wonder. “An unprincipled liar. And here I am one of the most heavily principled men in politics.” Lincoln chuckled. In every way, making allowances for regional differences, Seward’s humor was not unlike his own. “And since you’re a smart man, Governor, you never actually lie. Smart men never have to.”
― Gore Vidal, Lincoln

[Riggerjack]

Simon Cameron (R), Lincoln's Secretary of War, resigned in 1862 due to corruption charges. His behavior was so notorious that Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, when discussing Cameron's honesty with Lincoln, told him that "I don't think that he would steal a red hot stove." When Cameron demanded Stevens retract this statement, Stevens told Lincoln "I believe I told you he would not steal a red-hot stove. I will now take that back." (1860–1862)

[Kriegsspiel]

During the ensuing cries of "OHHHHHHH, Cameron just got OWNED!", white Southerners in attendance looked at each other in confusion. Fact.