Originally Posted by playwrite

Jeb forgot to pay the rent on jebbush.com and so Trump bought it.

If you try to go to jebbush.com you get Trump's Make America Great Again website.

You can't make this stuff up.

That is amusing indeed. Poor Jeb just ain't up to the task that his family dynasty and even his horoscope assign him. It's not all his fault. His brother's legacy is poor. But he himself seems just like Trump says he is: weak. His presentation and style is stale and unconvincing. And it's not getting any better. He does have substantial policy proposals; well thought out, but conservative (so how thoughtful can they really be?). His foreign policy seems thoughtful and sane, if too interventionist (and what can we expect from another Bush in that regard?). But a candidate and a president needs to inspire the people and get them behind him. He's not doing it. And if he makes a mistake like this, it shows that he is as out to lunch on dealing with practical day to day realities as he seems to be from his debate performances. I mean, the best he can do against Trump is just to say "I'm tired of the insults on my family?" Trump wins, Jeb loses.

South Carolina seems his last chance, although he might take a run at Super Tuesday. He still has the money, but for how long? I'm not predicting he will quit yet, but it doesn't look good for him.

Of course, this says something about Trump too, that we already know. He's a prankster and not a gentleman.

7 moments that mattered in the debate:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/momen...ry?id=36926066

Originally Posted by playwrite

- we need people that don't sweat!


You know, once the terror of the moment ends in November, this is going to be looked back on as perhaps the most entertaining election of all time. Or, on the other hand, the beginning of the end.

It already is the most entertaining.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It already is the most entertaining.

I'm trying to stay amused.

It seems the only anecdote to sheer terror of the thought one of the GOP clown car participants could actually be in the WH at this time next year.

Think Cynic Xer as one of our border guards.

Shudder-shudder. Laugh-laugh. Shudder-shudder.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Intervention in Kosovo was absolutely the right thing to do, and it turned out very well. I disagree; it was not about Russia. 1998 was not 1914; Serbia was not a Russian ally or part of their sphere of influence. It was about just what Clinton said it was about; stopping Milosevic from committing genocide in Kosovo. Milosevic was a war criminal who had to be stopped. And the Serbs disposed of him with a great people-power revolution, one just like the Arab Spring risings-- including the one that failed in Syria because Russia intervened.

Although of course I predicted the whole Balkan mess and the return of the Serbia problem, right on time with the Uranus-Neptune cycle and the saeculum cycles. 1998-1914 = 84 years.



I think it is. Freedom and democracy everywhere are better for us, and for world peace. Democracies are peaceful. The Libyans and Iraqis have a chance now for a better regime and a better life, but it's up to them to make the most of it. The people of Libya overthrew Qaddafi. The United States of America had no business invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam. It was for the people of Iraq to do that. But, we lost that fight; Bush won and the invasion proceeded. The resulting government was not much better, if at all; on balance it was probably a bit better at least according to the democracy index. It offers a chance for the Iraqis, but THEY will have to make it work better in the future. It's still up to them, as it has been all along.

Kagan and Kagan (I know, I know, neocon warmongers and all that rot ...) had a very good assessment of the whole Balkans situation of the early 90s. In spite of the supposed post-Cold War and in spite of supposed budding EUism, the Euros didn't do squat about the nascent genocide. We looked at it and said to ourselves, having another Rwanda in Europe would be bad mojo. We did what we had to do. Sometimes one needs to wade into the shit.

South Carolina is coming up Sat. Feb 20. 7 Republican polls Feb 12-16 have been steady, more or less, with Rubio improving a bit. The average is:

Trump 35.6
Cruz 17.6
Rubio 15.4
Bush 9.9
Kasich 9.7
Carson 5.3

Democrats vote Feb.27. Sanders has more time to catch up. On Feb 13 ARG released a poll giving Clinton a 65-27 % lead. Others show about 18-20 points difference. The average of 4 polls Feb 12-15 is:

Clinton 59.5
Sanders 35.5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-4167.html

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Kagan and Kagan (I know, I know, neocon warmongers and all that rot ...) had a very good assessment of the whole Balkans situation of the early 90s. In spite of the supposed post-Cold War and in spite of supposed budding EUism, the Euros didn't do squat about the nascent genocide. We looked at it and said to ourselves, having another Rwanda in Europe would be bad mojo. We did what we had to do. Sometimes one needs to wade into the shit.

Indeed, and we did get some help from NATO as we waded in too.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm gagging from the Kremlin bootlicking on this thread.

So, what do we have? A Jewish guy from Colorado who writes like a Limey, or is that just a convenient legend for one of the Kremlin trolls who John X has mentioned?

I don't put much stock in much of anything Xenakis has to say, he's a nutcase.

Trump is running to the LEFT of Hillary on many issues. If it is a Clinton-Trump race Trump is going to win.

Originally Posted by Odin

Trump is running to the LEFT of Hillary on many issues. If it is a Clinton-Trump race Trump is going to win.

I wouldn't rule out that outcome. But there is now that matter of the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That is amusing indeed. Poor Jeb just ain't up to the task that his family dynasty and even his horoscope assign him. It's not all his fault. His brother's legacy is poor. But he himself seems just like Trump says he is: weak. His presentation and style is stale and unconvincing. And it's not getting any better. He does have substantial policy proposals; well thought out, but conservative (so how thoughtful can they really be?). His foreign policy seems thoughtful and sane, if too interventionist (and what can we expect from another Bush in that regard?). But a candidate and a president needs to inspire the people and get them behind him. He's not doing it. And if he makes a mistake like this, it shows that he is as out to lunch on dealing with practical day to day realities as he seems to be from his debate performances. I mean, the best he can do against Trump is just to say "I'm tired of the insults on my family?" Trump wins, Jeb loses.

South Carolina seems his last chance, although he might take a run at Super Tuesday. He still has the money, but for how long? I'm not predicting he will quit yet, but it doesn't look good for him.

Of course, this says something about Trump too, that we already know. He's a prankster and not a gentleman.

7 moments that mattered in the debate:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/momen...ry?id=36926066

It's just the wrong time for Jeb. Jeb could have won in 2004 if his brother had been assassinated and he was still Governor of Florida. (I doubt if Cheney would have run for his own term as President or won if he had). But this year is not the year for a Jeb Bush kind of candidate. Jeb manages to come across as an Artist, ironically, even though Sanders is from the Silent Generation.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm gagging from the Kremlin bootlicking on this thread.

So, what do we have? A Jewish guy from Colorado who writes like a Limey, or is that just a convenient legend for one of the Kremlin trolls who John X has mentioned?

If I get disagreement from XYMOX and Eric I must be doing something right.

Hillary represents everything that embodies the delusions of the selfish boomers. Her obsession with globalism and world "human rights" is disgusting to most xers and millies. For that reason we like trump. The best american political leader in the current saeculum was henry kissinger, he conducted policy in order to advance american interests. If thousands or even millions of foreigners had to die, that was the price that just had to be paid. When Bangledesh rebelled against pakistan in 1971 and pakistani forces began systematic liquidation of entire categories of people among the local population, kissinger with the approval of nixon sent arms to the pakistani government. If a selfish boomer government like the ones we have now existed that wouldn't have been possible. In order to restore greatness of the american people, millennials support leaders like trump to get thing done.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Hillary represents everything that embodies the delusions of the selfish boomers. Her obsession with globalism and world "human rights" is disgusting to most xers and millies. For that reason we like trump. The best american political leader in the current saeculum was henry kissinger, he conducted policy in order to advance american interests. If thousands or even millions of foreigners had to die, that was the price that just had to be paid. When Bangledesh rebelled against pakistan in 1971 and pakistani forces began systematic liquidation of entire categories of people among the local population, kissinger with the approval of nixon sent arms to the pakistani government. If a selfish boomer government like the ones we have now existed that wouldn't have been possible. In order to restore greatness of the american people, millennials support leaders like trump to get thing done.

What does the bad comb-over say about vanity, and what does vanity say about actual ability to be a good man in a storm?

Oh, and vanity on a Boomer is vanity^2! Maybe even vanity^3!

Nevada is shaping up as I predicted, in one poll today:
Trump 45
Rubio 19
Cruz 17
Carson 7
Kasich 5
Bush 1

South Carolina average of 3 latest polls:
Trump 35 (previous average 35.6)
Cruz 17.3 (17.6)
Rubio 15 (15.4)
Bush 11.3 (9.9)
Kasich 8.6 (9.7)
Carson 5.3 (5.3)

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If I get disagreement from XYMOX and Eric I must be doing something right.

I may have made some good points to consider, Mordecai.

Robert Reich: The GOP died in 2016

I’m writing to you today to announce the death of the Republican Party. It is no longer a living, vital, animate organization.

It died in 2016. RIP.

It has been replaced by warring tribes:

Evangelicals opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and science.

Libertarians opposed to any government constraint on private behavior.

Market fundamentalists convinced the “free market” can do no wrong.

Corporate and Wall Street titans seeking bailouts, subsidies, special tax loopholes, and other forms of crony capitalism.

Billionaires craving even more of the nation’s wealth than they already own.

And white working-class Trumpoids who love Donald. and are becoming convinced the greatest threats to their wellbeing are Muslims, blacks, and Mexicans.

Each of these tribes has its own separate political organization, its own distinct sources of campaign funding, its own unique ideology – and its own candidate.

What’s left is a lifeless shell called the Republican Party. But the Grand Old Party inside the shell is no more.

I, for one, regret its passing. Our nation needs political parties to connect up different groups of Americans, sift through prospective candidates, deliberate over priorities, identify common principles, and forge a platform.

The Republican Party used to do these things. Sometimes it did them easily, as when it came together behind William McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt in 1900, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, and Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Sometimes it did them with difficulty, as when it strained to choose Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Mitt Romney in 2012.

But there was always enough of a Republican Party to do these important tasks – to span the divides, give force and expression to a set of core beliefs, and come up with a candidate around whom Party regulars could enthusiastically rally.

No longer. And that’s a huge problem for the rest of us.

Without a Republican Party, nothing stands between us and a veritable Star Wars barroom of self-proclaimed wanna-be’s.

Without a Party, anyone runs who’s able to raise (or already possesses) the requisite money – even if he happens to be a pathological narcissist who has never before held public office, even if he’s a knave detested by all his Republican colleagues.

Without a Republican Party, it’s just us and them. And one of them could even become the next President of the United States.

Are we seeing the "Caesarism" Oswald Spengler prophecized a century ago?

Originally Posted by Odin

Robert Reich: The GOP died in 2016



Are we seeing the "Caesarism" Oswald Spengler prophecized a century ago?

Interesting question. Was Abraham Lincoln a "caesar"? Or Jefferson Davis?
I'm not sure I would go that far. The US has seen parties dissolve into what became the building blocks of new parties in the past.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I may have made some good points to consider, Mordecai.

So you do, Eric and it is always a delight to discuss them with you.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Hillary represents everything that embodies the delusions of the selfish boomers. Her obsession with globalism and world "human rights" is disgusting to most xers and millies. For that reason we like trump. The best american political leader in the current saeculum was henry kissinger, he conducted policy in order to advance american interests. If thousands or even millions of foreigners had to die, that was the price that just had to be paid. When Bangledesh rebelled against pakistan in 1971 and pakistani forces began systematic liquidation of entire categories of people among the local population, kissinger with the approval of nixon sent arms to the pakistani government. If a selfish boomer government like the ones we have now existed that wouldn't have been possible. In order to restore greatness of the american people, millennials support leaders like trump to get thing done.

Kissinger was about leveraging US power and triagulating between China and the USSR so that the US could recover from a very serious decline in international standing because of the loss of the Vietnam War. Triangulating between the USSR and China and taking full advantage of a Chinese wish to escape from international isolation got the US out of Vietnam with some semblance of honour at the time. Kissinger was also the architect of the Petrodollar, which maximised US advantage in the world. In return for protection from Communism, the US got an agreement that oil would be priced in US dollars, which is what the US has been fighting for ever since. And in Latin America, the Mideast and Africa, Kissinger reinforced a bias in US foreign policy in favour of authoritarian regimes that goes back to the 1890s.
A lot of Kissinger's nostrums were good ideas at the time (2T-3T). But they no longer work at a time when the US now lacks the preponderance of military and especially economic power it had in the 1970s. We don't live in Kissinger's world anymore.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

So you do, Eric and it is always a delight to discuss them with you.

Thank you.

Here is a long article from The Atlantic on today's move toward the Left.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...g-left/419112/

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I wouldn't rule out that outcome. But there is now that matter of the Supreme Court.

Yes, it is clear he goes along with McConnell. Trump will have difficulty wooing the non-white vote, despite his claims that he can appeal to and get along with everybody. There is not only anti-immigration and insulting verbal attacks on other groups, and his apparent preference for a conservative supreme court appointment, but he also emphasizes how much he supports the police rather than the black lives matter protesters. As a billionaire who has generally conservative views on economics, a Democrat will be more appealing to those ethnic groups who are struggling. With non-whites now 30 percent of the electorate, he can't turn them all off and still hope to win. For many liberals, his climate science denial posture also makes him a non-starter. And many will question his qualifications and temperament.

On the positive side, his celebrity, confidence and leadership ability makes him a popular hero. His trade policies give him an advantage with folks who feel they are falling behind economically. His anti-immigration stance gives him that appeal also, although mostly only among whites. He might even seem less militaristic than Hillary Clinton, even though he also seems unstable and perhaps impulsive and unwise in foreign affairs (and he favors torture). He wants the poor to have health care, and his tax policies are not as extreme as those of Ted Cruz. He rails against lobbyists and cronies, of which he himself has been one, and he might support overturning citizens united or passing some weak campaign finance reform. But if he nominates a conservative judge that won't happen.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Kissinger was about leveraging US power and triagulating between China and the USSR so that the US could recover from a very serious decline in international standing because of the loss of the Vietnam War. Triangulating between the USSR and China and taking full advantage of a Chinese wish to escape from international isolation got the US out of Vietnam with some semblance of honour at the time. Kissinger was also the architect of the Petrodollar, which maximised US advantage in the world. In return for protection from Communism, the US got an agreement that oil would be priced in US dollars, which is what the US has been fighting for ever since. And in Latin America, the Mideast and Africa, Kissinger reinforced a bias in US foreign policy in favour of authoritarian regimes that goes back to the 1890s.
A lot of Kissinger's nostrums were good ideas at the time (2T-3T). But they no longer work at a time when the US now lacks the preponderance of military and especially economic power it had in the 1970s. We don't live in Kissinger's world anymore.

What I'm saying is that trump's views are closer to what should be considered good ideas. Basically what the US should do is 1). Make concessions to Russia and China with regards to those countries near-abroads. 2). Make political and military reforms to reorganize american society, the economy and the military 3). Use the reorganized military and economy to carry out campaigns directed against the new economic regions in the third world that don't yet have military power and convert those regions into captive markets to serve the US economy.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What I'm saying is that trump's views are closer to what should be considered good ideas. Basically what the US should do is 1). Make concessions to Russia and China with regards to those countries near-abroads. 2). Make political and military reforms to reorganize american society, the economy and the military 3). Use the reorganized military and economy to carry out campaigns directed against the new economic regions in the third world that don't yet have military power and convert those regions into captive markets to serve the US economy.

Bush 43 tried neo colonialism. Put the troops near the oil indeed. Russia and France had been about to sign deals with Saddam to reopen the oil fields. Bush 43 tried to operated directly against their interests, and found himself at the other end of a proxy war. Iran too started playing proxy war games.

I see this as par for the modern course. In the old days, prior to the world wars, there was a polite rule that major powers would not arm and train the locals in another power's colony. Well, it wasn't a universal rule. The French and British in times leading up to and including the American Revolution would both try to employ native tribes as insurgents and auxiliaries. Still, the art of proxy war has matured. Proxy support and gorilla tactics make quagmire a likely result of attempted neo colonialism.

Obama brought the troops home. It might not be as hard to get them abroad agains as it was in the 'wag the dog' days of Clinton 42. However, the mood of the country is such that a lot of folks will be asking Powell's Questions if anyone tries neo colonialism again.

The selfish boomers are the personification and culmination of the several centuries long trend trend of eschewing national cohesion and distinctiveness in favor of pathetic globalist pie in the sky values that started with the glorious revolution.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Obama brought the troops home. It might not be as hard to get them abroad agains as it was in the 'wag the dog' days of Clinton 42. However, the mood of the country is such that a lot of folks will be asking Powell's Questions if anyone tries neo colonialism again.

The first Gulf War was the real "wag the dog". It ultimately backfired on Bush 41.