So what? My point was clearly not that Japan was somehow better. My point was that if America would have followed a pacifistic or isolationist tradition, this would not have been able to provoke it. My problem is not that my position is attacked. This is what I expect. It is that it is heavily distorted. Extending the drone war was a reduction? Why do you claim such nonsense? I have never claimed there is no difference. The point being? I have not named these peaceful. The point being? It was my point that Roosevelt was unable to start the war against Japan himself because of that American tradition. (In comparison, today Clinton would be free to start even a nuclear attack against Russia without any fear of any isolationist or pacifist tradition.) (I would guess this is more because the Americans couldn't care less about some Chinamen being murdered. But one would have to look at the media coverage at that time to see this - not worth the time for this unimportant question.) The point being? As if France and Britain had not done similar things. And as if this would have been something considered bad at that time, and not something a Great Nation is supposed to do. And the very point of isolationism was in no way that if some evil other state starts an aggression against its neighbors, then that's horrible and isolationism has to be forgotten.
Thank fuck they didn't hey? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you lay in swill, you'll come up smelling like a Pig. The point is that Japan and Germany got and deserved exactly what they asked for.
Don't forget that I'm a paid Russian propaganda distributor, so I have to be happy that the US has fought in this war on the side of the Great Stalin. Good point. I should, indeed, stop discussions with you. Fine. So what?
Yes. I quoted the post. A peaceful agreement between Vichy France and Japan, you dubbed it. There can have been no such thing. Clinton will find it very difficult to start any wars at all, nuclear or otherwise. Congress will not cooperate with her as it did with W&Cheney. America in the 1940s had about the same "tradition" of pacifism and isolationism it has now - as a quick glance at the history of almost any South American or Pacific Island nation can verify for you. And so forth. Information. They hadn't, actually, in a long time. Maybe never, with Britain. Wrong again - Great Nations were supposed to have learned from WWI, if not earlier, and all such behavior put in the uncivilized past. This was serious - WWI was a real shock. Japan was way out of line, and only given a pass because they were assaulting other nearby Asians, and because Hitler was drawing the attention of the West. But we circle to the center: You claimed to see no difference between the actual behavior when in power of the two major Parties in the US. I chose a difference you could have seen easily, without informing yourself better about domestic issues in the US. And this is directly relevant to life after Trump. Because even if Trump is not elected, it will be a while before the US is "after Trump". And when that does come around, the question of how the Republican Party dealt with the fact of this Trump campaign may have a lot to do with how the US manages its soft power vs hard power deployments.
Why this? Vichy France was the part of the remains of France which was at armistice with Germany, so it may as well have been nice to Japan. If you doubt the claims of Wikipedia, fine, I have simply quoted the Wiki claim without further research. The illegal terrorist wars which Clinton likes do not need any cooperation of the Congress, but, ok, let's hope so. But, sorry, hope that a republican-controlled Congress opposes a war? Not really plausible. There was a difference. And you know it. Of course, the British as well as the French colonial empires have been created by completely peaceful and democratic means. No doubt that WW I was a shock. But this shock has not made the world more peaceful in any way. Or made colonial wars somehow illegal or so. What you think Great Nations would better have learned from WW I is one thing, reality is a different one. You think the Libyans feel much better because they have been bombed without an official war, but illegally backed by a "no fly zone" resolution of the UN? Or the Syrians bombed by the soft power of Al Qaida terrorists? I do not think that there are no differences. I think the differences between the parties are not that important. Note, once I think that the relevant decisions are made by the deep state - which, as we seem to agree, is not a single entity, but has factions too - the relevant differences depend on which deep state faction rules the deep state, not on which party rules the Congress or provides the president. (For clarification: I do not think that president and Congress are only puppets of the deep state - they are also part of it. But their real power inside the deep state is quite different from their official power, as we have actually seen with the Pentagon simply f.... the Syrian ceasefire. This is, btw, another point why Putin may prefer Clinton: With Trump as the president, there will be much more deep state sabotage, so that it becomes impossible to make any contracts with the US. This may be behind Putin's seemingly neutral "we hope that one can make contracts with the next president which will be fulfilled" or so.)
Under Trump, we could end up like this to "make America Great again". WARNING: EXTREME VULGAR LANGUAGE !
It was an imposed government of occupation, which ceded Indochina to Japan at German gunpoint, immediately creating a military threat to American colonial interests and their US military "defense" forces - as well as a humanitarian disaster among people the US wished to have as allies. It did this in the middle of WWII, as part of a military strategy for prosecuting the war. There was nothing peaceful about it. Yes, they do. Congress pretends otherwise, for its own reasons, but it can (for example) cut off the funding at any time, or make other obstructions. It's possible - if they do well enough in the upcoming elections - that Congress will oppose anything Clinton attempts to accomplish, simply because it's Clinton doing it. Anything. They came close with Obama, when they had the chance. Again, do you not find some importance in the difference between full scale military invasion and conquest, as in Iraq under W, vs the soft power sanctions and what not of Clinton in Iraq during the 1990s? As of the beginning of WWII, neither country had done anything like what Japan was doing to China within living memory - if ever. Certainly not to establish colonies. - - - Agreed. But one should not underestimate the amount of aggression and military violence perpetrated by the US in distant places throughout its history - the only break in foreign military venturing, domination of quasi-colonies and foreign client States, expansion of territory via military conquest, and similar violence, came during the Civil War - when the natural violent streak and military bent was otherwise engaged. In the fifty years between the end of the Civil War and its recovery hiatus, and the entry of the US into WWI, US soldiers under the US flag fought in Formosa, Korea, Samoa, Mexico, Cuba, China, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and a dozen or more Red tribal territories not part of the US proper. The US tradition of major military innovations in gear suited for throwing military weight around in distant lands began before the US existed, when a significant improvement in hull bracing led to the Revolutionaries under Washington possessing a couple of the most lethal fighting ships in the world - the size and speed and maneuverability of frigates with cannon equal to some battleships. So a few years after the Revolution there's Thomas Jefferson - he of the agrarian paradise isolationism and non-involvement in foreign troubles - sending a contingent of the US navy across the Atlantic to beat up on the Barbary Coast pirates, and not incidentally demonstrate to the European powers the risks they ran if they meddled over much in the Caribbean or other "American" waters. Also not incidentally, the pattern of entrenching "defense" expenditures in well distributed community stimulus packages dates from that as well: So the modern US military pattern, since WWII, is not really a brand new one in kind. What is presented as "isolationism" in America then was in large part ambivalence among the citizenry about fighting for England (traditional enemy) against Germany (the home country of many Americans) - or taking sides in a war between racially indistinguishable Asians for reasons not really clear. When Americans have an interest, they have always been more than ready to take up weapons in foreign lands. And Trump's faction is especially belligerent in this regard - it's almost as if the US has to start a fight somewhere at times just to keep them busy
Fine. The usual business of colonial powers. Which would not have bothered an isolationist America at all. I do not care much about what you name peaceful, but it would be nice if you would do this in some consistent way. Or do you really think this way of taking control over parts of Indochina was much less peaceful than the what France has done to gain Indochina, and Britain to gain its whole empire? No ceding something at gunpoint at all? (Hm, maybe a variant of the libertarian theory that owning unowned land is fine, but taking it from others is aggression, in the racist version that things owned not by Whites count as unowned? SCNR) Some funds yes. Other CIA funds (say those from Afghan heroin trade) not. The guys who supported Clinton in the election will fight her? Meaningless comparison. I could, as well, compare doing essentially nothing by W in Syria and Libya to what Clinton has done later. If you want to remember Billary, then remember Billaries open war. The bombing of Belgrad and the NATO occupation of Kosovo, to create there the greatest US base in Europe. Ok, the final body count of the Kosovo war was less impressive. Happy? So you also shift the discussion toward the Nanking massacre? Which seemed to have played zero role for the oil embargo, and is therefore completely irrelevant for the topic? Don't worry about this Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And thanks for the nice justification of this point.
One things that people on the left seems oblivious too is, Trump has never had the power to do anything in government. The best he could do is rent or lease help from politicians. In the end, the elected officials decide. Everything Trump is assume to be, once in office, by the left, is due to projection and propaganda. There is no data of Trump in office. Political which uses a different set of rules than they do business. These are not the same. For example, in business, good normal business practice will find ways to appeal to everyone, from all demographics, since all money is green. It makes no sense to polarize half the market and not do business with half of the people. This makes more sense in politics, where all you need is 51% of the vote. You reward your buddies and punish the other half. A Trump casino or Hotel welcomes the poor and rich has rooms for both. This is not normal for politics, who tend to cater to one or the other. This is a good skill to bring to office. Trump is sort of like the new kid, who transfers to the school, who is a mystery. He appears one day. Since he has a clean slate, to fill in the void some gossip will have him a serial killer, while other gossip has him a spy. The disconnect between hard reality data, and what may be, can make him be anything we wish him to be; imagination becomes active. This is different from Hillary. Hillary is like one of the regular kids in the school, who has a tangible history. There is less room for imagination since there is plenty of data connected to her reality in office. The tactic of the Democrats is to confuse reality with fantasy and then try to create a negative fantasy of the new kid. This type of negative gossip can make it hard for the new kid to fit in. Trump would prefer stick with the hard reality of Hillary, which is not too clean. Wikileaks are adding hard data to Hillary. The Democrats are setting up a distraction my making the Russians the story. Even if we assume the Russians are doing this, why is truth not good? Because it interferes with the fantasy.
I have to admit it was actually kind of fun watching conservatives freak out about emails regarding public and private expression, as well as the bit about how far the White House is from average, middle class Americana. Honestly, I wonder about a world where the special accommodation to conservatives is that we have to pretend the mere fact of different expressions public and private is somehow shocking, or that reflecting on the difference between where one is and where one was once upon a time is somehow scandalous. I really do. I wonder about the consciences that just aren't smart enough to figure out the differences. And at the end of the day, that's the thing. I'm a liberal, Wellwisher; I'll still respect your human rights. You know, unlike conservatives. Unlike Donald Trump. Unlike you. Think of it this way: The guy who needs surgically attached wings as a metaphor for being human in order to justify exclusion wants to tell me why I should be alarmed about Hillary Clinton while making up a hagiogrpahy for Saint Donald is not offering a reliable assessment. The disconnection between reality and your delusion of Trump's clean slate mystery is another example, Wellwisher, of why you are considered unreliable, and why your ranting posts are considered delusional lies. Seriously, Mr. Trump isn't any mystery. There is a difference between other people gossiping and an individual actually boasting of criminal behavior. That you cannot tell the difference is yet another reminder of your general self-invoked disqualification. Here's the question: Why do you write such terrible posts? Are you a deliberate liar? Or are you incompetent? The latter requires we afford you at least some manner of special accommodation.
Not entirely a digression, but briefly: • Once upon a time, Apple was considered hip. In the grand mythos, Microsoft, the dominant player, was "evil", and the Macintosh Way was supposed to equal some manner of greatness. But the Macintosh Way is dead and Apple has achieved the status of largest corporation in history. Personally, I loathe what Apple has become, but here's the thing: I still carry an iPhone, because Windows and Google phones are even worse, and American carriers pretend they don't know how to deal with Linux, so there is no point in importing one of those phones. In the tale of Apple's rise, though, there is a very interesting episode. Steve Jobs had promised to keep the name "Apple" out of music, respecting the Beatles. He did negotiate with Sir Paul along the way; the industry wanted some say, as well, and demanded Apple make sure these files they were selling could not be easily traded in piracy. Honestly, this makes sense. It was always a dumb scheme, though. But for all consumers complained, things didn't turn until the record industry stepped up and started complaining about Apple DRM, and it was a really political backlash, laced through with sentiments about why did they ever do that. And you know how it goes; the people who told you to are always among the first to pretend loudly that they don't know why you ever would have. But, yes, hearing major record labels complaining that they didn't know why Apple had done what they demanded was actually part of the transformation of Apple's reputation. And then I think of the whole Foxconn scandal; Apple is properly evil now, right? At least, that's how the anti-institutional, anti-corporate backlash seems to see things. (I wonder what would happen if Apple was held to the same standard of honesty that performance artists are?) What strikes me about our neighbor's arugment that "Trump has never had the power to do anything in government" is that neither did Steve Jobs, nor has Tim Cook. Yet people are really pissed about Apple, or Walmart, or wages at McDonald's, or consumer banks, or the latest Disney conspiracy to destroy Christians with child homosexual orgies, or whatever. And to find out that none of it matters? Because none of these had the chance to do their damage from the offices of government? Fine, who do I get to be pissed at about wasting all that time on all those fake scandals about businesses? Then again, I'm only saying this to you because I fear our neighbor incapable of comprehending the problem with his (ahem!) logic, and, really, it's kind of worth taking a moment to chuckle over that one. "Trump has never had the power to do anything in government". Okay, then. I can't wait to see that standard applied generally. By the way, does buying off the government count as never having the power to do anything in government? As government Bondis go, I'm sure it seemed like a good investment at the time.
Trump has no experience as a government official. Ok, what makes you think that's a good thing? Would you hire a woodcutter to do heart surgery? You know, there is some value in training and experience. I'm not going to hire a woodcutter to do heart surgery or any other kind of surgery. Inexperience isn't a qualification for the highest office in the land. Well here is the thing, Trump is a horrible businessman. Trump with his chronic bankruptcies has polarized the banks, lenders, and business partners against him. That's why he is no longer in the construction business. That's why he hasn't built a building for more than 10 years. Instead, he licenses his name to builders. Trump isn't any kind of new kid. If you think so you are certifiably delusional. He is a 70 year old man. He has been in the spotlight his entire adult life. Trump's problem isn't gossip or other people "filling in" blank spaces. There are no blank spaces and that's one of Trump's problems. He isn't a mystery. He isn't unknown, and the only "reality data" disconnect is between the ears of his followers. Whenever I see this crap, and it's almost always from Republicans or these self described "conservatives" who are anything but conservative, I'm always reminded of Matthew 7:3 "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" The only confused people here are folks like yourself Wellwisher. I guess you kind of missed the last 30 years or just aren't capable of recognizing it. For nearly 30 years now Republicans have accused Hilary Clinton of everything from simple malfeasance to serial murder all completely without merit. Republicans have used a lot imagination to create all these trumped up charges they have leveled at Clinton over the course of the last 3 decades. One of the differences between Trump and Clinton is Clinton has endured 30 years of Republican slander and investigations. Trump has not. Wikileaks is trying to continue the multi-decade Republican smear of Clinton and is acting as an agent of the Russian government. Russian's are the story. We have never before had a state actor like Russia attempt to interfere with an American election. As much as you and your Republican cohorts want to sweep that under the rug, it's an important issue in this campaign. All Americans should be asking themselves why Russia wants to see Trump elected. As for the documents, there is a reason why the Russians are releasing them just before the election. They don't want people examining them too closely. And by delaying the release to just before the election, they don't give people and in particular the Democrats, the time needed to properly vet them and they distract Democrats from campaigning. You don't have to be brain surgeon to figure that one out. The documents really haven't been damaging. There is nothing bad or unexpected. The big damage is in the distraction they create.
You were the one claiming an isolationist tradition for America in 1940, remember? You were the one naming the agreement "peaceful", remember? I merely objected, by pointing out that stuff done by combatants at gunpoint in the middle of WWII, that militarily threatens noncombatants, and was part of ongoing combat strategy, was not "peaceful" in any reasonable sense of that term. The Republican ones, absolutely. Of course. Didn't you know that? How can you formulate opinions about the two major Parties in US politics - claiming they have no important or significant differences, say - if you don't know this very basic stuff? No, you couldn't - because W did a lot to Syria and Libya, not "essentially nothing", and so did Reagan and Bush Sr. - more than either Clinton, and considerably more than any Secretary of State even a Republican one. Most of what Secretary Clinton was doing in Syria and Libya amounted to dealing with bad situations created by - primarily - Reagan, Bush, and W. If you are comparing the Parties in the US according to Presidential administrations and the military violence they employed, the key ones for recent events are Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W, and Obama. Reagan, Bush, and W, characteristically built up the US combat military and launched open military combat and war - hard power. Clinton and Obama characteristically built up diplomacy and employed sanctions, embargoes, deals, treaties, UN and NATO involvements, etc - launched soft power, for the most part. The split is along Party lines. That is an observable difference between the US major Parties as we know them today. Do you seriously regard this difference as unimportant? Japan hardly limited itself to Nanking - Japan invaded and occupied China with its coal, via full scale military assault and brutal oppression, and was expanding its military violence toward Indochina and its oil. Neither Briton or France had done anything like that under their current governments, and the experience of WWI had caused them both to break with whatever remnant parts of their former cultures and governance had ever regarded Japan's behavior towards its neighbors as something a "Great Nation was supposed to do". Japan was years engaged in full scale and threatening military aggression, in 1940. No soft power stuff - they were bringing the army. The US was not. And the relevance to life after Trump? Trump represents - as a voting base - the faction in the US that got control of Japan in the early 1930s. The honor valuing, military focused, male dominated, authoritarian, religiously mystical, violence oriented, racially bigoted, cultural fraction of the country. The natural fascists. That's his foundation of support. To expect his administration to be peaceful, isolationist, and minding of its own middle class business in calm prosperity, is to ignore the last two centuries of history. And to pay attention to that history is to worry - seriously - about what will happen in the wake of Trump losing this election. It will be better than his winning regardless, but seriously bad stuff can come of this.
Well here is the problem for Trump, a number of these swing states are Republican states, and they aren't going to say their elections were "rigged".
Two Words: Kris Kobach Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just to get this one out of the way under the unenumerated but well-known rule of the antiprophecy stating that it's occurred to me, I've made the prediction, there is exactly no chance it will come true: • What about a state deliberately tanking its electoral process to start the fraud conspiracy theory? (To wit: How long do you think Kris Kobach could hold out?) (I just had to mention Kobach↱, didn't I? I mean, seriously, holy shit, dude! Kansas Republicans are awesome!) ____________________ Notes: Associated Press. "Kobach asks court to set aside default judgment". Lawrence Journal-World. 17 October 2016. www2.LJWorld.com. 18 October 2016. http://bit.ly/2ejDnCZ
It seems that the problem with Trumpists is they believe the entire system needs to be dismantled and replaced with an "iron hand" government. Sounds familiar? .
