Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

always wondered what Wolverine nation thought about Brady's friendship with trump. although come to think of it Wolverine nation did help trump immensely win this presidency-just another Brady associated winner I guess

Well, you seem to get the picture. Both Harbaugh and Brady are staunchly pro-Trump, but Brady has to keep his mouth shut since the draws his salary in Massachusetts. Harbaugh, on the other hand, has no such limitations, and his wife and Bo's wife cut commercials for Republicans in the last election.

Winners support Trump. It is not really more complicated than that. And this forum is a great microcosm of the basic division in the country. Pro-Trump folks are like Harbaugh: they cherish competition and they expect to win in any competitive environment. Those who are losers, or those who expect that they would lose, support the progressive agenda of taxing the successful to provide for the unsuccessful.

Unfortunately, as I'm sure you have noticed, the unsuccessful in this forum are the ones who have lots of opinions, and want to support those who are not "priviledged". But that only means they fear competition and want equality of outcome. It's what you would expect from losers, and, of course, not from Jim Harbaugh or Tom Brady.

[Da Geezer]

Dont give a fuck

thanks.

[froot loops]

My understanding was that the Ds brought up the trans issue with Obama's letter to school districts telling them that funds would be cut off if they were so racist, sexist, and homophobic as to make those with nuts pee in the boys' bathroom and those with pussies pee in the girls' bathroom.

SLF, I'd recommend Cooley Law School for you. They accept anyone, and it would give you a chance to root for the Lions while attending.

BTW, what does DGAF mean?

What a creepy post.

[Da Geezer]

Cat 4 now...wow...gotten even stronger than predicted

Indeed. And Harvey is expected to remain over East Texas until Tuesday. They are talking 40" of rain in some areas.

Reminds me of when a hurricane hovered over Cuba for over a week in the 1960s. Castro accused the US of controlling the weather over the island.

[WingsFan]

Hurricane Flora is among the deadliest Atlantic hurricanes in recorded history. Despite widespread suffering in Cuba, Fidel Castro rejected monetary and other types of assistance offered by United States. This, in turn, ended up setting Castro’s agriculture-based economy back by as much as four years.

[froot loops]

The Sheriff Joe pardon was predictable but still very sad. That guy deserved to sit in a prison cell.

[WingsFan]

Harvey has made landfall in Texas as a Category 4 storm. As high as 40 inches in some areas. I just seen forecasts 5-6 days hovering and dumping ALL the moisture contained in a Cat3 storm... absolutely brutal

https://spacecityweather.com/

[CGVT]

Too bad for Texas, but I'm glad it's there and not here. When you live on the coast, hurricanes are a bit of a conundrum. It is not quite a feeling of schadenfreude, but more of a feeling of relief or better them than us.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The TV media is yammering on uselessly about Harvey. A decent public service but the repetition of the same information is tiresome. Some key issues that will affect us nationally:

Corpus Christie (it's port), and Houston TX (refining and storage) is the hub of oil industry in South TX and nationally is critical to the flow of crude. Wind is not the issue. Flooding is.

Click on the link below and you'll see the web of pipelines that deliver gasoline to different parts of the US. Best case, gas will go up around 30 cents per gallon in the SE to include the TX coastal regions. If there is extensive flood damage to storage and refining capabilities, it's hard to predict how high gas prices will go but they will go up.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines_map.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines.html&h=652&w=1380&tbnid=yAAQuM_fw_DVlM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=211&usg=__IqebJtX-TwJYOBYFdFsq4D7zgiY=&vet=10ahUKEwjtop-i8fTVAhVIHGMKHWaqBw8Q9QEILDAA..i&docid=pyQb7nN1bG-i0M&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtop-i8fTVAhVIHGMKHWaqBw8Q9QEILDAA#h=652&imgdii=jypoOfOWDg4biM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=211&vet=10ahUKEwjtop-i8fTVAhVIHGMKHWaqBw8Q9QEILDAA..i&w=1380

The West, Mid West and North East US will see price increases but not as substantial and in the 7-10 cent per gallon range.

While the suffering of people affected by Harvey is important, the news media will over-focus on this because, well, it sells. There's a risk for farmers, livestock and crops (cotton) from the flooding that is going to occur. Here's a link that seems to sense the SE Texas farmers and ranchers are ready for it.

https://www.agweb.com/article/texas-farmers-race-to-mitigate-the-impact-of-hurricane-harvey--naa-anna-lisa-laca/

Anyway, Harvey will blot out other important stories for 4-5d (the news cycle) so, keep your eyes and ears open for other news.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Years ago, during the Bush I years and Operation Desert Storm, I was a strong supporter of military action in the ME to protect US access to oil and other strategic objectives. How wrong I was about outcomes has pretty much been realized. That's another story.

So, my views on what kind of military and economic policies the US should pursue globally has changed substantially from those I held in the 80s/90s. I took on a position where the importance of the connecting features of international dialogue through institutions designed to facilitate it, cooperative global trade (trade agreements) and military alliances (NATO) were the way to insure peace and prosperity. I'm beginning to question that view.

I found this article interesting in that it depicts, for me anyway, a notion of what kind of foreign policy at a strategic level I'm comfortable with. I think the author gives way too much credit to Donald Trump for formulating it as I really don't think he is smart enough to do so. But it could be the emergence of the kind of thinking from his inner circle of advisers that will begin to shape the course of US foreign policy going forward. Will it last? Who knows and that is one of the pitfalls of administration changes and the polarization of US politics that is the current reality.

I think this article, while it reflects the flavor of Steve Bannon's Nationalism, it casts it in totally different construct. It's a good read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450742/donald-trumps-conservative-internationalism-foreign-policy-americas-best-interests

[Da Geezer]

Good article, Jeff.

Conservatives have always favored a different world order than liberals do, one based on nationalism. Liberals seek to expand international institutions and restrain global capitalism, just as they champion big government and regulated markets at home. Conservatives, by contrast, emphasize national sovereignty, limited government, and competitive markets abroad, just as they do at home. They count on personal responsibility and civil-society institutions (family, neighborhood, churches) to foster opportunity and restraint. They deplore government mandates and unconditional welfare and foreign aid. The goal is a “republican” world, one in which free nations live side by side, responsible for their own defenses and economies, and cut deals with other nations, including authoritarian ones, to the extent their interests overlap.

That's a good summary of the difference between liberals (progressives, not classical liberals) and conservatives with respect to foreign relations.

[hack]

That describes absolutely no one's reality in today's global economy. Not even close.

[Ghengis Jon]

Conservative descriptions of liberals is as accurate as liberals' descriptions of conservatives. Basically useless and usually absurd except to the froth mouthed flat liners.

[Da Geezer]

That describes absolutely no one's reality in today's global economy. Not even close.

Well, how, then, would you describe the "reality in today's global economy", if not as the author chooses to define it?

It seems to me that the phrase "(Progressives) seek to expand international institutions and restrain global capitalism, just as they champion big government and regulated markets at home" is an accurate description of what you and Jon believe. Any part of that you do not believe? Or maybe you are only seeking to redefine what "Liberal" means?

[Jeff Buchanan]

That describes absolutely no one's reality in today's global economy. Not even close.

I respect your worldly opinion. I know you've traveled extensively but this seems a bit dismissive to me of a reasonable construct in which to compare, in general terms, how liberals and conservatives (and lets not get overly picky about these definitions) might develop US Foreign Policy.

Try to get beyond Trump in this discussion. His involvement, IMO, is irrelevant if not destructive to what the NRO article is pointing out might correctly define an evolving, Trump administration FP.