On Trump’s visit to Mexico
Trump has a low bar to clear: all he has to do to go up in the polls is to appear sane, steady, rational. The more he can do that, the more chance he has of actually beating Hillary Clinton.
Yesterday, Mexican President Peé±a Nieto helped him to do just that by treating him not as a lunatic or as a buffoon but as a normal statesman on a normal diplomatic visit. Trump is, of course, fully capable of acting somewhat “normal” in the public eye if he chooses to, at least for short periods of time; we just haven’t seen enough of it (and we’ve seen too much impulsive behavior that alarms people). And it isn’t clear how long he can sustain such conventional steadiness or under what circumstances.
Naturally, the press had to distort what happened and make it seem as though there was some huge disagreement about—not the wall, nor who was going to pay for the wall, but whether the two men had discussed who was going to pay for the wall. Trump is hardly my favorite character on earth, as everyone who reads this blog knows, but this press-generated (in my opinion) brouhaha is somewhat ridiculous:
The two politicians said they talked about trade, immigration, and security, and each stressed their mutual respect. But, according to Trump, they opted not to discuss the most explosive issue on the table: the GOP nominee’s repeated demands that Mexico pay for a wall along the border.
“We did discuss the wall, we didn’t discuss payment of the wall,” Trump told reporters at a brief press conference alongside Peé±a Nieto after their meeting. “That will be for a later date.”
Peé±a Nieto declined to address Trump’s statement from the podium, but his office rushed to counter Trump’s version of events after the press conference ended, creating confusion about the content of their discussions.
“At the start of my conversation with Donald Trump I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall,” Peé±a Nieto tweeted in Spanish from his official account afterwards. “After that, the conversation moved on to other topics and unfolded in a respectful manner.”
As Bill Clinton might say (that is, if his wife wasn’t Trump’s opponent), it depends what the meaning of “discuss” is. I say that a discussion needs the participation of both parties in the talk, not just one making a statement and the other listening to it. So I see no disagreement between the two versions. A “discussion” is a back and forth, a negotiation—an attempt to do a “deal,” if you were, or at least commence one or set up the possible parameters for one. A statement of an opening move by one party is not a “discussion,” it’s a statement.
Between now and November, the more times that Trump can create optics that make him seem presidential, or even marginally presidential, the better it will be for him. This represents a very real change in direction for him and his campaign, if (big “if”) he can sustain it and keep these calm photo-ops coming.
Hillary’s problems are different. She has to staunch her own bleeding, the continuing revelations of her violations of the basic rules of security and the evidence of more and more corruption and lies.
I’m liking him more and more.
He had a great day yesterday; even his detractors grudgingly gave him some credit. He also performed one of the best headfakes I’ve ever seen in politics, and a lot of folks were left flailing, trying to keep up.
Ann Coulter spoke at the New York City Republican Club this weekend and made a very solid case for Trump as being, not a “terrible choice just slightly better than Hildabeast,” but a man who brings some solid positive qualities: he’s stoutly defending America’s laws (see yesterday’s speech, e.g.), and putting American citizens first (I know — how gauche).
The race is tightening. Voting against this fellow is going to be increasingly costly: Never Hillary, please, people. Ciao!
I do get a distinct sense that the press is beginning to grasp at straws. Now, maybe that’s just me, and our mythical median voter might not do so. But, if this continues, they may just start to see through the increasingly irrational noise. Maybe.
Meanwhile, there is still this gap of ~112 electoral votes to overcome.
Just by doing a “diplomatic” trip while the Beast does million dollar fundraisers is starting to catch the sleepy public’s attention perhaps. Also, he’s everywhere giving interviews, etc, while she hides. The mere fact that he is willing to talk to the prez of Mexico and vice versa is very significant I would think.
The 538 trends continue, and maybe even accelerating a bit. If you project it out, then the two curves cross around the first week of October, and by Nov8 Trump is around 70% and Clinton around 30% probabilities. Her campaign right now is in free fall.
He is definitely making progress. Still, positions that seem so logical and and simple seem beyond his willingness (I assume not his ability) to grasp.
Instead of saying (sic) “we are going to build a great wall, the greatest, most beautiful (I think he actually used that word) wall ever; and Mexico is going to pay for it. Believe me they are going to pay for it.” Why not just say; “we had a forthright discussion about our mutual interest in border security. I believe that the Presidente understands my position and also understands that an antagonistic relationship with the United States under my administration would be devastating for Mexico. I look forward to a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship.” Something like that seems like a strong, but diplomatic statement that would not be overtly antagonistic; at least not insultingly so. It should satisfy Trump’s base as well. Oh, well.
It ain’t beanbag, OldFlyer. And the previous blather of the previous pols ain’t cuttng it with ye olde BS.
““we had a forthright discussion about our mutual interest in border security. I believe that….”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……
Over @ the blog American Thinker, there is an informative and strategically insightful article; “Adopt Mexico’s Immigration Policy”
It closes with what would be a brilliant slogan for Trump to adopt in regard to immigration; “All that Trump needs to do is point out that, if its good enough for Mexico, it’s good enough for the United States.”
Neo: ” Trump is, of course, fully capable of acting somewhat “normal” in the public eye if he chooses to, at least for short periods of time; we just haven’t seen enough of it (and we’ve seen too much impulsive behavior that alarms people).”
I’ve seen it opined that Trump is ADD. Do you think his behavior could be diagnosed as such?
The issue of who is going to pay for the wall has always been like nailing Jello to a wall. Some people, and maybe Pena Nieto, seem to envision Mexico sending a check or a small unmarked jet filled with Swiss francs to Washington. Trump has been cagey about what he means. Some Trump surrogates are saying that, by controlling the border, we will save enough on education, medical, welfare, and criminal/legal costs to pay for the wall. Other Trump supporters and Trump himself imply that renegotiation of NAFTA will change our balance of trade enough to pay for the wall. Of course, neither of those options will result in money going directly from the Mexican government into our government’s coffers. I see this as a play on words. Yes, we will benefit financially from controlling the border, but the money won’t flow directly to the U.S. Treasury. It does make for red meat for campaign rallies though.
“The 538 trends continue, and maybe even accelerating a bit. If you project it out, then the two curves cross around the first week of October, and by Nov8 Trump is around 70% and Clinton around 30% probabilities. Her campaign right now is in free fall.”
Keep hope alive, but I think is a real reach. I’ve heard this one before – it’s an interesting way to spin that Trump being where he is right now vs. Hillary is a good thing. Because trends!
Look, I’m not predicting but I pretty much am preparing for the blowhard to win, which strinks(for me) because I’m #neverTrump and have always been. I don’t claim to be on top of all the political doings right now but I sense that her strategists are counseling a “run out the clock” strategy to win, let Trump cook his own goose with his tendency to be a bug orange know-nothing jerk. But his true followers don’t care how he flips, flops and lies, and the nose-holders are pretty locked in too. He just needs to convince a few more percentage points and this thing will be anyone’s race. He is extremely fortunate that she is so roundly despised.
IF he (somehow) outperforms her in the debates she’s in real trouble, I think.
Can’t believe we’ve come to this. Having Trump for president and the “face” of the USA to the world is going to really … suck. Same for having her, but at least she won’t be killing the conservative movement and my former party, the GOP.
Vanderluen, you are too clever for words. I bow to your cleverness.
GB; the point is that Trump needs to win more than the plurality that got him the nomination. So, he needs to sound Presidential, while still sending signals that he will hold the line. Stand alone statements like I paraphrased will not win many votes that he did not win in the primaries. What they will do is harden the Mexican position unnecessarily. Could it be that he does not know the difference between bargaining behind closed doors and public posturing?
Sorry, meant to address JJ’s statment in my last.
Oldflyer,
Some people, perhaps a majority, want to be conned. They want to believe they are buying beach front property at bargain prices or trump university is a wise investment. Nothing can persuade them otherwise. No way and no how.
Bill,
The face of the US cannot suck anymore than it currently does. Any appearance by other nations to the contrary is pretense. Behind our backs the world is either laughing in disbelief or wetting their pants. Some nations will sneer in contempt at an America led by Trump (the EU) some may be frightened by him but the secret laughter will stop.
Anyone else notice the Mexican President’s jaundiced eye as he listened to Trump speak at the news conference?
Mexicans send home to Mexico $29 billion dollars every year. Why can’t a tax or new transfer fees on that money pay for the wall?
“The face of the US cannot suck anymore than it currently does. “ – GB
Overwrought alert!
.
“Her campaign right now is in free fall.” – pg
True belieber alert!
Just checked RCP Average.
She is down 1.6% since Aug 27 (her most recent peak since April) to Sep 1.
During that same period trump LOST 0.2%.
Recently, from Jul 27 to Aug 1, trump lost 3.7% – much closer to “free fall”, but we have seen a lot of movement since then – down then up.
Fact is, polls will move significantly, but calling any of this a “trend” is not even supported by the data, let alone some notion that there is a “free fall”.
Such an unsupported assertion is either woefully wishful thinking or just plain (let’s be nice and not say).
I know it won’t be read at this late point, but just to respond to Bill. My projections from 538 data are just that; projections. I am not trying to keep “hope alive”. I am just doing what physicists do: looking at data and playing “what if”.
Politics is not a physical system, and as I have stated before using linear or even non-linear projections on poll data is marginal at best. However, if I were a Clinton advisor I would be a bit concerned.
“Some nations will sneer in contempt at an America led by Trump (the EU) some may be frightened by him but the secret laughter will stop.”
What – nations won’t laugh at us when TRUMP is in office? The guy who’s going to turn the presidency into a reality show? That Trump?
You’re right, some nations are already terrified. But trust me, some – like Russia – are laughing their behonkuses off right now.
“I am not trying to keep “hope alive”. I am just doing what physicists do: looking at data and playing “what if”.”
Physicsguy – I meant no disrespect. But as you mentioned later in your comment, trending out some recent short term change in fortunes and ending up with Trump at 70/30 versus Clinton is not realistic.
It’s like watching a football game, and one team is leading the other 28 to 14 in the third quarter. Then the losing team kicks a field goal. and not it’s 28 to 17. You can trend that out to show the losing team winning by the fourth quarter, but it doesn’t reflect reality.
I do agree with you that Clinton should be nervous. To continue my football analysis, it’s like her team has decided to start playing Prevent defense in the third quarter. There’s too much time left, too many things can happen (plus everyone hates her).. I figure he’ll probably end up winning.
Parker, Trump already has the people who believe he will build a great wall, the greatest, and Mexico will pay for it. He probably also has those who believe that the moon is made of green cheese; and those who believed that the Lone Ranger shot silver bullets.
What he needs to do is convince an appreciable number of the rest that he can represent the United States like a real President; i.e. from a position of strength, but in a manner that will not publicly alienate the people with whom he actually has to deal. The man who touts the “Art of the Deal” must know that to do a deal there must at least appear to be something for both sides; and publicly embarrassing the other side is not effective.
That’s all I have to say.
“The face of the US cannot suck anymore than it currently does. “ — GB
“Overwrought alert!” Big Maq
Rose colored glasses alert! Denial alert! 3 blind monkey’s alert!
See, I can do it too.
“What — nations won’t laugh at us when TRUMP is in office? The guy who’s going to turn the presidency into a reality show? That Trump?” Bill
At long last, have you learned nothing? Sigh. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? Is Trump a wild man with his finger on the nuclear trigger or an object of derisive laughter? You can insist that he’s a danger to all of us or that he’s a joke but you can’t have it both ways.
Geoffrey Britain:
That last paragraph of yours is wrong, wrong, wrong.
A person can be perceived as both a joke and/or a fool and also a great danger.
Why not? Do you not think that jokes and/or fools can be dangerous? They can be dangerous through errors of judgment if given power, for example.
For many years, Hitler was perceived by many people in Germany, and many people worldwide, as some kind of joke, but he certainly was dangerous and was also simultaneously perceived as dangerous (and I think by the same people in many instances). The person perceived as a joke is often perceived as not being able to gain power (some people in Germany thought Hitler could never be in power) but simultaneously perceived as potentially dangerous when in power.
I could go on with this, but I’ll stop there. The point is that there is no real contradiction, because jokes and fools can be very very dangerous if given a lot of power.
““The face of the US cannot suck anymore than it currently does. “ — GB
“Overwrought alert!” Big Maq
Rose colored glasses alert! Denial alert! 3 blind monkey’s alert!” – GB
GB – you have been consistently overstating the case.
If you (and you have) assert that trump would be authoritarian / autocratic / etc., (And my compliments to your honesty on that matter), then by most measures it surely would sucketh MUCH more.
I can imagine hundreds of possible scenarios where things can get MUCH worse.
Your ENTIRE premise for supporting trump is that clinton would make things MUCH worse.
There are multiple possible paths that can make the US sucketh maximus, making today seem to sucketh minimus in comparison.
It is not rose colored glasses nor denial to understand all this.
We are nowhere near the worst possibility.
Perception may or may not be aligned with reality.
“Hitler was perceived by many people in Germany, and many people worldwide, as some kind of joke”
After Dunkirk, no one thought he was, some kind of joke… neo.
Geoffrey Britain:
I’m talking about during the 30s. I thought that was obvious. Both before he became Chancellor and after, but before the war.
“GB — you have been consistently overstating the case.
In your opinion, of course. Others here disagree.
“Your ENTIRE premise for supporting trump is that clinton would make things MUCH worse.”
Absolutely, in the long run the Castros of the world are much worse than the Pinochets.
“There are multiple possible paths that can make the US sucketh maximus, making today seem to sucketh minimus in comparison.”
We aren’t talking about “multiple possible paths” we are talking about a Pres. Trump surpassing Obama’s damage to the world’s perception of the US.
“We are nowhere near the worst possibility.
History demonstrates that a triumphant Left will impose the “sucketh maximus” upon us, look to Europe and Islam, look to 1984 because that’s where the Left’s path leads.
neo,
And I’m talking about the alignment between perception and reality, using the example you provided. In the 1930s many did dismiss Hitler as a fool. By Dunkirk that perception had been demolished, so he was NOT a dangerous fool but a dangerous monster… in the 1930s.
Absolutely, in the long run the Castros of the world are much worse than the Pinochets.
GB, you haven’t been paying attention to the Alt Right or the Leftist alliance’s mobilization.
Now it appears to you that the Left is the greater danger, but they are only one part of the puzzle. That’s the problem with coming to accept the truth to late, you are many steps behind and America does not have much time to make up for that.
As for the context of what I mean by the Alt Right problem, here is the link with the relevant background context.
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2016/09/jonah-goldberg-on-core-alt-right.html
Ymarsakar,
There is no denial of the fact that the alt-r has a large segment who are racist or I think more accurately, advocates of white tribalism. BTW, I do not believe that the majority of Trump’s supporters are white racists.
“GB, you haven’t been paying attention to the Alt Right or the Leftist alliance’s mobilization.”
Are you positing that the alt-r and Left are forming the beginning of an alliance? If not, I’m unclear as to what you mean. If so, the white tribalism of the alt-r and the multiculturalism of the left are inherently antagonistic. Which acts as a natural limit on cooperation.
“We aren’t talking about “multiple possible paths” we are talking about a Pres. Trump surpassing Obama’s damage to the world’s perception of the US.” – GB
Come on. Now you are changing it up…
“Having Trump for president and the “face” of the USA to the world is going to really … suck.” – Bill
“The face of the US cannot suck anymore than it currently does.” – GB
When you assert that trump would indeed be authoritarian, and I judge that to be rather worse than where we sit today, of course it is my opinion.
But is that opinion really a stretch?
An authoritarian who is unpredictable (as you also admit elsewhere) and has temperament issues. Nothing to worry? Cannot get worse than what we have today?
Aw man, now you are arguing the absurd.
“Others here disagree (with BM’s opinion)”
There may be commenters here who buy into your view / argument, but I doubt much of the electorate would be on board with that.
Big Maq,
The original dispute was and still is, whether Trump would hurt America’s reputation around the world more than would Hillary. Since Hillary has repeatedly stated support for Obama’s foreign policy and stated her intention to continue them, the damage Trump might do can be compared to what Obama has done. So I am not changing the discussion.
No, an authoritarian President will not do more damage than has already been done. Obama has deeply alienated our allies and demonstrated himself to be an appeasing paper tiger.
That is not to say that Trump’s unpredictability and temperamental animosities are not a concern. Just that Hillary and the Left, in the long run is a cast iron certainty to deepen where we are today. Which will sooner or later result in disaster because appeasement is an invitation to aggression. Trump may well bring disaster, the Left must bring catastrophe, as it is an inherent result of their world view
Well, at the risk of beating a dead horse, he has to get elected first before he can be the face of anything. And to do that he needs to convince an appreciable number of unconvinced people that he is Presidential material. He made a good start in Mexico, and then squandered the gains (in my opinion) as he often does with his undisciplined remarks later.
As decision time approaches, I am pulling for Trump. I have given up hope of any surprise alternative, so we must count on him to keep Hillary out of the White House. So, my comments are meant to be instructive. Are you listening Mr Trump? I was afraid of that.
“The original dispute was and still is, whether Trump would hurt America’s reputation around the world more than would Hillary. “ – GB
That seems to be what Bill was countering, BUT, you came back to him with the contention that it couldn’t be worse than it is today.
Now, you seem to think we can go as far as the depths of fascism because that it “easier” to “recover” from than the alternative from clinton.
We fundamentally disagree that authoritarianism / fascism / whatever you want to label it, is somehow anywhere near a good approach to voluntarily take, as it is far worse than the unexceedable “suck” of our country today.
There are plenty of avenues to take before we even entertain the possibility of that path. But, if you sincerely believe that essentially all is already lost, you have already given up, rendering any other avenues useless, so why bother trying?
Geoffrey Britain:
So, you think the alt-right and the left can’t be in alliance, at least in part, and for some goals?
I think you are sadly and naively mistaken.
I can tell you that, as a blogger who has been fielding comments from the alt-right for at least a year (much of it under the radar, because the comments often get eliminated before just about anyone sees them), I can say that I cannot tell most of the time whether the offensive comments come from left or alt-right. They are profoundly similar in style and often even in substance. I long ago suspected they were either in league (far left and alt-right) or that they share goals (destroy the GOP and all candidates who were alternatives to Trump). I believe that they are united at least somewhat, and that each side thinks it will outlast and overpower the other in the end.
Very much like the alliance of the Khomeini crowd and the left in Iran right around 1979. The left thought it could use Khomeini and the mullahs as a tool, and vice versa. Turned out the left was wrong, and the mullahs got the last laugh.
Geoffrey Britain:
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. My point is that thinking someone is a fool but also a dangerous person is not a contradiction. You seem to think the two can’t co-exist, but they can.
There were people in the 30s who thought Hitler was a dangerous fool. And there are people today who would still say that about him. One of the definitions of “fool” is a person who makes unwise decisions. He certainly made plenty of decisions that were extremely unwise on the face of it, such as invading Russia. In fact, he probably would have been a lot more successful had he not been foolish.
A lot of people look at his speeches today and cannot understand why anyone followed him, because to them he seems unhinged, ranting, laughable. That’s what people meant when they thought he was a fool; not that he was stupid or some sort of dullard. But or course unhinged and ranting people can be dangerous if given power.
What’s more, Hitler fits the Biblical definition of “fool” (see this), although I don’t think that’s quite what people usually mean today when they use the word.
But that was a side issue in the discussion on this thread. The original discussion you and Bill had was about this statement of Bill’s:
You had responded:
It was that paragraph of yours that is wrong, in many ways actually. I’ll list them:
(1) The condescension of the first sentence
(2) The insistence that it must be either/or. Bill hasn’t said he holds both views. He has made it clear that some nations think Trump a wild man and are afraid of him, and some nations think he’s a subject for laughter.
“some nations are already terrified. But trust me, some — like Russia — are laughing their behonkuses off right now.”
So Bill is not saying that they believe both things simultaneously. He is saying that both opinions co-exist in the world today. He is not “having his cake and eating it too.” He is suggesting that there is not one single reaction to Trump that every single person or nation holds. I don’t see how you can possibly disagree.
And it may continue to be true, if Trump were to hold office.
(3) Your last sentence, “You can insist that he’s a danger to all of us or that he’s a joke but you can’t have it both ways,” is wrong in that Bill isn’t insisting that Trump is both a joke and a danger in the eyes of Bill. He’s insisting that some people see Trump one way (danger) and some see him another way (joke). You are confusing that statement about other people with Bill’s own opinion of which of the two things Trump really is, whereas Bill is speaking of other people’s (and other nations’) perceptions about Trump. Bill is not saying that the same person holds both views simultaneously.
However, I added a thought to what Bill said. I am adding the thought that (even though this isn’t what Bill was claiming), it is indeed possible to hold both thoughts similtaneously. It is indeed possible to think a person a fool and even laughable in his/her foolishness, but also to think that if that person got power that person could and would be very dangerous.
Trum must have gotten tired of trying to uphold his “care less about Megyn Kelly” Act, and found something that looked better as a human opponent.
. Ecclesiastes 10:2 says, “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” A fool is one whose wayward heart turns continually toward foolishness.
Haha. Well, that’s one argument why Left and Right existed before the French were ever around.
Which is it? Is Trump a wild man with his finger on the nuclear trigger or an object of derisive laughter?
GB, having converted from the Leftist alliance and socialist/Demoncrat theology late, should recall, assuming memory is capable, that Neo often put out the question about Hussein being a fool or a kad/bad. I didn’t accept that thinking and wording, so I preferred evil as the answer. She combined fool and nave together, though, as her answer.
Humans are complicated enough that relegating them to one category, is insufficient. Otherwise GB would still be an evil, Clinton voting, Demoncrat supporter. By his hands, power was given to evil, and by the power of evil, it was used to destroy this nation from the inside out, plus bunch of other populations in the world.
So, you think the alt-right and the left can’t be in alliance, at least in part, and for some goals?
They already are, given the evidence and sources I’ve had.
At least 30% of the Alternative Right are former Democrats or the white trash discards of Margaret Sanger/Demoncrat eugenics/White Supremacy. They have been suppressed, for sure, but they were never wiped out. The Left and the Right suppressed them out of the mainstream, but with the internet, they are capable of networking and representing themselves a real faction.
There’s also the Russians, who have seen their ethnic nationalist Active Measures work out well to upset their Western rivals or former Soviet bloc countries like Georgia.
No, an authoritarian President will not do more damage than has already been done. Obama has deeply alienated our allies and demonstrated himself to be an appeasing paper tiger.
So when Trum treated the Japanese as his stepping down and extortion target, that didn’t damage America more than Hussein has already done? Maybe that’s because you don’t speak Japanese or know how their culture/politics works, or maybe because most Westerners know about Japan from reading translated Leftist sources.
The original dispute was and still is, whether Trump would hurt America’s reputation around the world more than would Hillary.
Which implies that if Trum causes America to fall by 50% and Clinton causes America to fall by 51%, Trum is still better. Better for whom, the 1%?
That is a very different logical inference than Trum not causing any damage to the US.
neo,
“Bill isn’t insisting that Trump is both a joke and a danger in the eyes of Bill.”
I thought he had previously advocated both points of view, depending upon the specifics being discussed. Perhaps I’m mistaken.
“It is indeed possible to think a person a fool and even laughable in his/her foolishness, but also to think that if that person got power that person could and would be very dangerous.”
Of course it is possible to think someone to be both. What I’m saying is that because a fool by definition, thinks and acts in opposition to reality… a fool’s foolishness is an inherent limitation upon how dangerous they can be.
Arguably, Hitler was not foolish at all in invading Russia as he knew that there was a high probability that, once it was fully engaged on its Western front, Stalin would attack Germany. So, he preemptively attacked Russia and arguably, Hitler’s invasion of Russia only failed because of the massive amount of supplies and weapons America supplied to Russia, which started after Hitler invaded Russia. That slowed down the German advance into Russia, resulting in winter arriving before Germany could do to Russia what it had done to France.
Ymarsakar,
I was never a member of the Leftist alliance and socialist/Demoncrat theology. I have never voted for a democrat. I voted for Perot. Nor have I ever been a supporter of either Clinton in either word or deed. I have always been an independent. It is not my memory which is flawed but yours, since I’ve stated these facts many times. Not that I expect one but the comment, “GB would still be an evil, Clinton voting, Demoncrat supporter. By his hands, power was given to evil, and by the power of evil, it was used to destroy this nation from the inside out, plus bunch of other populations in the world.” deserves an apology.
“So, you think the alt-right and the left can’t be in alliance, at least in part, and for some goals?” neo
“They already are, given the evidence and sources I’ve had.
At least 30% of the Alternative Right are former Democrats or the white trash discards of Margaret Sanger/Demoncrat eugenics/White Supremacy.”
Of course they can align where there are mutual interests. But 30%, which BTW sounds about right is not a majority… that acts as a natural limit upon cooperation and alliance. That 30% may well share the same tactics as the left but just exactly as Hitler and Stalin’s alliance fell apart, so too must an alliance between the alt-r and Left because at base, they are antithetical to each other.
Trump speaking the truth about the Japanese did NOT hurt our image, speaking the truth may temporarily appear to do damage but in the long run, it strengthens whatever basis there is for alliance.
I’ve never disputed that Trump may well hurt our image. On the other hand, when you’re at the bottom the only direction is up and I believe the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that we are at the bottom, given that our allies strongly mistrust us, non-aligned nations are disinterested in alliance and, when our enemies increasingly act against our interests due to sensing weakness.
Geoffrey Britain:
Most people believe that Hitler was a fool to invade Russia (and that certain other decisions were very foolish as well, but the Russian one seems most obvious). He had not learned the lessons of history, and he defied reality in thinking the same thing would not happen to him as had happened to others.
You are free to have a different opinion.
I repeat: fools can be very very dangerous. The fact that they do not sufficiently take into account reality does not at all mean they are not very very dangerous if they are making decisions on which the lives of millions of people depend. It is that very thing that can make them very very dangerous.
Would the fool be more dangerous if less foolish? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And it depends on whether you agree with the fool’s goals or not. If you agree with the fool’s goals, the person is less dangerous if less foolish. If you don’t agree with the fool’s goals, the fool is more dangerous if less foolish. Either way, however, a fool can be very very dangerous if given power.
You can find lots of sites listing Hitler’s egregious errors of judgment, sites that consider him a fool. Here’s one, for example. As I wrote in an earlier comment, there are plenty of people who see him as having been both a fool and a great danger. And yes, he would have been even MORE dangerous had he not been as foolish, because his goals were pernicious.
Voting for Perot, well history shows that was foolish! After all a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton!! 😉
OM,
Yes, it was foolish and it was an inadvertent vote for Clinton. While I believe that reason dictates that anyone who lives in a swing state that does not vote for Trump is assisting in the election of Clinton, that does not equate to direct support of Clinton.
neo,
“a fool can be very very dangerous if given power.”
Yes, when power is unchecked, even a fool can be dangerous.
The greater the fool, the less dangerous they can be because that disconnection from reality limits the danger, unless… sane people refrain from limiting that danger.
Edmund Burke’s truism still applies,
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that [enough] good men do nothing.”
I have always been an independent. It is not my memory which is flawed but yours, since I’ve stated these facts many times.
I haven’t read those posts of yours. First time hearing that stated frankly. It must have been after you were complaining about Democrats not being treated as family or citizens. The only record of your voting that you’ve written that I’ve seen is that you voted for Ross Perot. The rest were generalities about changing your beliefs or correcting them and how they were different from your Democrat social group.
Memory doesn’t work if I don’t have a hard datacore to study a little bit after all.
For the record then, I’ll tentatively accept your statements. Although if you were never a Democrat, I have to wonder what made you “change”. Changing from a Libertarian to a Republican isn’t that large a gap these days.
That 30% may well share the same tactics as the left but just exactly as Hitler and Stalin’s alliance fell apart, so too must an alliance between the alt-r and Left because at base, they are antithetical to each other.
Alliances like that are unstable, but only when their interests collide. Hitler invaded Stalin, after all. The ALt Right would be in an alliance with Tea Party betrayed conservatives and GOP E power brokers. Plus some other factions. They would not be likely to side with the Leftist alliance, since the Left threw out the KKK and white supremacists awhile ago as trash. This is likely revenge, in part.
The Leftist alliance, from what I’ve seen, has many mutually exclusive ideologies. Black BLM assassins who hate gays, for example (Black Panthers, Pastors, Revs, fake Christians, Westboro Baptists, etc). Homosexuals who hate straight people and women, and feminists who hate men. They can’t all be “compatible” with each other. Yet for some odd reason, they may compete against each other, but they save their money and firepower for the real enemy.
Trump speaking the truth about the Japanese did NOT hurt our image, speaking the truth may temporarily appear to do damage but in the long run, it strengthens whatever basis there is for alliance.
America’s truth is that the IRS and Secretary of State did nothing wrong. The truth in other countries, can be very different. As for there being an objective truth… that’s not something Trum can claim with much moral authority given his behavior.
I predicted some of the Japanese political fall out from that comment, but Japan’s media is heavily controlled via favors. And few people in the sub cultures trust the mass communications, as they term it.
I’ve never disputed that Trump may well hurt our image. On the other hand, when you’re at the bottom the only direction is up and I believe the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that we are at the bottom, given that our allies strongly mistrust us, non-aligned nations are disinterested in alliance and, when our enemies increasingly act against our interests due to sensing weakness.
The US allies will never trust the US again. That’s my line at least. So we’re not only at rock bottom, but we’re still in free fall.
To be frank, a lot of the US’ protectorates Do Not Want to be reliant on US protection. They see it as a kind of serf or vassal relationship. They may be satisfied with it, so long as the US does its part, but once vassals start thinking about going independent or rebelling… the only way to get them back is to conquer them again. If they believe in US assurances and promises… they would be fools and thus deserve to be invaded and conquered. No patriotic country wants to beg and scrap for favors from another more powerful country. American patriots should understand that issue when they think of Islam or Russians or Chinese controlling this country. Or even Israel.
Besides, they will have figured out that CW 2 is coming and that the US won’t be reliable for much of anything in the near future. Japanese and Russian and European and African intel analysts can’t all be that stupid, compared to America’s FBI and CIA under Hussein’s Regime.
Given Russian/Syrian/Iranian/IS/Turkish movements lately, I would say these nations are already planning to carve up the world in a Pax Americana is dead state.
I doubt the US can save the world again, after having failed in Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq. The US will have a difficult enough time saving our own states and counties.
Not that I expect one but the comment, “GB would still be an evil, Clinton voting, Demoncrat supporter. By his hands, power was given to evil, and by the power of evil, it was used to destroy this nation from the inside out, plus bunch of other populations in the world.” deserves an apology.
You’re right, that would be the wrong thing to say, if your current claims are true, and I see no reason why they wouldn’t be. Although, again, I don’t trust your memory of various events, but these events would be something you should not have gotten wrong.
I don’t expect people to apologize for being wrong either, of course. But I will be sure to remember what you wrote here, at least.
Are you positing that the alt-r and Left are forming the beginning of an alliance? If not, I’m unclear as to what you mean. If so, the white tribalism of the alt-r and the multiculturalism of the left are inherently antagonistic. Which acts as a natural limit on cooperation.
To clarify and elaborate on my meaning, I am talking about when people become corrupted they blame other groups for why they have failed. Islamic supremacy blames Great/Little Satan for being more prosperous and militarily mightier, even though Allah should have given faithful Muslims that power, but that shows why Muslims are superior and the infidels are weak. The blacks have their own version in Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, and BLM. They’ve always had it with their toxic masculinity gang based culture as well, like rap or cars or drugs or shootings.
So to get to the point, it’s not guaranteed that after the ALternative Right wins against the Left, that their white supremacist beliefs won’t come back to haunt people. Whites in the US, have been discarded by Democrats, they are under welfare/drugs/violence, and they are being persecuted for being Christians or anti Left. All of that is true, so when whites say that they are the “Superior Culture”, it’s natural that they would find converts. Who wouldn’t want to believe they came from Superior Stock, given their horrible state of life and affairs?
The blacks suffer in urban ghettoes under Demoncrat lords, but they can blame it on whitey and institutional racism. So they can tolerate it, as some of em get rich and join the whites. But it has destroyed most of their families as a result.
If the Alt Right can do the same to the rest of the “white tribes” in the US, it would collapse things more than even the Left has. Right now people are vulnerable, Tea Party conservatives are vulnerable and feeling desperate.
So no, I don’t think that after a Pinochet, we’ll be capable of recovering, vs a Castro in Cuba who demolished it. It is not guaranteed at least.
Islam is supposedly not compatible with the Leftist alliance, but yet they are allies. While I don’t think the ALt Right needs the Left as allies, the future may change. If Islam is defeated, if the Left is defeated, and the Alt Right has to take on white tribes who refute their white tribal supremacy beliefs, perhaps they will be able to pick up some Leftists and former Demons.
The white tribalism of the Alt Right, came from the failed eugenics belief of slave lords in the Southern confederacy and the KKK and the various other white supremacist groups obedient to a Democrat hierarchy. They got discarded as trash and is now making a come back, sort of like Sarah Palin with Trum. Palin is having her revenge against the McCain GOP “staffer buddies”. The white tribals are having their revenge against Leftist sand Democrats, who used them and then threw them away. A tribal would understand the need for blood vendetta and that is why they are very effective against the Left online on facebook and other propaganda centers. They have hate in their hearts, and that hate nullifies much of the Left’s viruses. “Racism” isn’t something they fear being called. Many of them don’t believe in white eugenics, but they don’t believe in the Left’s eugenics either. They are loyal to the tribe and will fight for the tribe, although “white” was never a tribe (look at Europe) until slave lords made it one in 1830s plantation days to differentiate them from the Negros.