Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Following up on before, DeWine just requested disaster aid for Ohio farmers

50% of the corn crop has been planted vs 96% being the norm by June 10

Only 32% of soybeans have been planted vs 93% in a normal year

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190614/amid-waterlogged-fields-dewine-seeks-disaster-aid-for-ohio-farmers

[Dr. Strangelove]

The DOJ is defending Mnuchin's decision to not hand over Trump's tax returns to Congress. That they chose to release this legal opinion after 5 Pm on a Friday MAY be a small tipoff to how much confidence they have that they'll win in court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.761c748eee5e

So the crux of their argument is this:

1) They openly admit that Congress does in fact have the right and the power to request any President's tax returns. The language in the law itself is pretty clear, but some legal eagles were trying to invent novel interpretations for the word "shall". At any rate, the DOJ has totally abandoned that line of argument and openly concedes that Congress has a right to the returns.

2) However, they say that since Congress' intentions are dubious and impure, it's okay to ignore the direct language of the law.

3) They also argue, once again, that a legitimate legislative purpose is necessary and since they don't believe Congress has one, it's okay to ignore the direct language of the law.

The DOJ, fighting on Trump's personal behalf, has already lost TWICE citing this same "legislative purpose" argument when they sued to stop subpoenas on two of Trump's lenders.

[Ghengis Jon]

Each to his own. I can see why you think that. I think a case can be made that despite his prodigious personality flaws, this administration can retard the decent of America to a socialist nanny state. Hannibal might disagree and he's made it clear he thinks it's too late. He has a point. My point is that you have to keep pushing back against that trend to protect the founding father's vision of this republic, "property rights, free markets and sound money." I'll get behind any politician, warts and all, that does that.

I've detailed my position on America's place on the international s cene. In short, there is an ongoing battle, a competition, not some sort of cooperative village, between authoritarian regimes - highly socialistic by nature - and liberal democracies - predominantly and fundamentally capitalistic. Nation states defined by both of these governing and economic principals all seeking to establish spheres of regional and global influence if not dominance. The era of nations bound together by treaties espousing common beliefs, goals and cooperation - the post WWII, Liberal World Order - is over.

In my view, the Trump presidency and it's administration is the first since that of Ronald Reagan's to push back against a global trend to favor authoritarian socialism as a form of nation state governance. It has taken discernible steps to reassert America as the global leader in protecting liberal democracy. To be clear, I think there are inconsistencies in this administration's efforts to do that, sidling up to SA being the primary example. I can also justify that relationship as a matter of practical reality and have done so here.

At the same time and on the national scene, this administration has taken steps to assure the vitality of free market principals and fiscal conservatism - free trade, deregulation, low taxes and privatization. I can go down a long list of steps in the areas of trade, taxation and deregulation where this administration has done this. Essentially it is working to reverse a trend to the socialist, nanny state that has deep roots but in the modern era gained traction during the Clinton administration and later in the Obama administration. That Bernie Sanders has achieved the popularity that he has in America is more than an astounding reality demonstrative of how deceived by the liberal rhetoric of the day and off track the voting public has become.

I haven't seen a presidential race like the upcoming one where the two sides, the Democratic and Republican platforms, are more starkly different. There is little middle ground in either of them. If a Democrat is elected (and I'm excluding moderates like Biden among others who are not going to represent the D party), the slide to the nanny state will continue. Taxes will go up, regulation will exceed that which is necessary and government control of aspects of our daily lives which should remain in private hands will increase. That's the risk here, probably not recognized by many young voters, Millennials in particular, of thinking one is doing the nation a favor by voting to rid itself of an unpopular president, his lack of popularity based solely on his personality flaws.

Lots of good points Jeff, some I'm rock solid with, others I'll challenge.

Trump can retard the country's descent to nannyism? No flippin' way. He is ripping apart the fabric of this nation. It's not divide and conquer, its just divide, because the only way someone as unqualified and incompetent as Trump can survive is through chaos. Promoting America's descent into narcissistic tribalism is somehow better than nannyism? I don't see how either is better than the other. I fear nannyism will be the pendulum swing against anti-Americanism Trump is inflicting on this nation.

I'll get behind any politician, warts and all, that does that.

Bullshit, I know you better than that. Let me ask you this. How would you label the German people of the 1930s? Hitler pulled Germany out of a depression worse than what the US suffered through FDR-like works programs. He reduced unemployment to less than 2% (1940). He transformed a defenseless nation into a European powerhouse. So look at the scorecard. Revived the economy, virtually ended unemployment, and built a world class national defense. But he had "warts". So all the people that then flocked to National Socialism, despite Mein Kampf's clear blueprint for genocide and war, its fine and dandy to support a person blindly, "warts" and all, because you agree with some of their policies? How would you label the German people? Misguided? Deluded? Slack jawed tribal? Or should we perhaps just call them future Trump supporters? (Sorry, couldn't resist the shot.)

I agree, Trump has acted with positive intent on the issues of trade, taxation, and deregulation. But in practice, very mixed results. Tax relief mis-targeted, wound up funding huge CEO paychecks and powering stock buybacks and not much else. Trade? Given the treatment of our allies, a complete failure. China no verdict, still ongoing, but inflicting the Trump Tax on US businesses seems counterproductive. Deregulation? Again, good intent but misapplied. How removing Obama restrictions in WV and Tenn where mining companies were prevented from dumping chemical waste into streams feeding water reservoirs is not something I support. Just one example.

I pray Biden gets the nomination. I do not want the Sanders and the Warrens of the world to get the D nomination. It would come close to the abomination that was 2016 where the worst possible choices were forced upon us. The lesser of two evils is still evil. We wound up with the most evil POS that gets played at every turn on both the national and world stage. Its only been two years, and I'm sick of it. IMO we don't need nannyism and we don't need to reelect a mentally ill buffoon. I voted 3rd party because of the lack of choice last time and I want a choice this time. Unfortunately the GOP is happily letting its conservatism become a thing of the past. They won't even call out "their president" when he asks for foreign help in his reelection effort because they have lost all ethics, backbone, and any sense of principle or morality. That slavish devotion to a scumbag who wipes his ass with the Constitution robs the American people of a choice.

We, as a nation, are falling into a morass. If the Dems don't put forth a candidate worthy of the office, we run the risk of replacing a clear and present threat to the nation with a president who does not hold the ideals of freedom as their benchmark. Not a pleasant possibility.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jeff,

Another angle to consider as we deal with Iran. Not my own, but one put forth by Dan McLaughlin and David French, who admittedly aren't fans of Trump but nevertheless conservatives who view Iran as a threat.

How many times over the past two and a half years has Trump forced a subordinate to go out on national tv and claim something that was patently untrue just to soothe the bruised ego of their boss? Think of how symbolic it is in retrospect that on Trump's second day in office he forced Sean Spicer to go out on national tv and berate reporters for daring to suggest that Obama had a bigger inauguration crowd? Seriously! That was Day 2!

So we know, those of us who aren't blindly loyal to him, that he pressures everyone around him to blatantly lie on his behalf to the public. All the time. For the most trivial, stupid things. How does that then affect your credibility when you want a group of nations to believe you when you claim you have evidence than Iran committed what's close to an act of war? You only lie about little things, not the important stuff? Is that a comforting argument? Maybe it's actually not worth indulging Trump and his ego over and over again because it could come back to bite us on the ass one day.

[iam416]

[Dr. Strangelove]

I wish I had posted this sooner because I'd prefer to go out on a more serious post tonight but...I can't resist this picture

This is legit. Not a parody. This is the picture the official White House account sent out to honor Flag Day today.

D9CIXhAWkAAhWQb.jpg:small.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jon, DSL, fair points ...... my position is that the conservatism evident in the Trump administration's policies trumps whatever the Ds can bring to the presidency. There is no question, whoever gets the D nomination, that administration will continue a course for America, already begun but pushed back against by the current administration, that will lead this country away from one that embraces free trade, deregulation, low taxes and privatization to one that embraces market socialism, regulation, excessive and unnecessary re-distributive policies and some degree of nationalization of the means of production.

Jon, your reference to Hitler's Germany is a false equivalence. We've had this argument before here. Donald Trump is not Adolph Hitler by any stretch of the imagination.

I also think both of you exaggerate the impact of Trump's character on his administration's national and international policies even though your points have merit. I will acknowledge that there are aspects of Trump's behavior that have a negative impact on, for example, immigration policy at home and standing abroad. However, at home, the American system, as it has been proven on many occasions in the past, can limit and has limited that negative impact of the executive. Abroad, the influence of cooler heads and the global nature of inter-dependency on multiple levels limits the potential impact and consequences of a US executive's actions.

On balance, I can get behind most of what the Trump administration has done, not all while accepting that Donald Trump, the person, can be foolish, irrational and unpleasantly pricklish. That wasn't my early take on him. I was, to a lesser degree, in DSL's camp - Trump's character erases any positives achieved by his administration. I worried here about an irrational Commander and Chief with his finger on the nuclear button when it came to the stupid exchanges made public between Trump and Un.

But as the Trump administration took steps to level the playing field on trade with it's European and North American counterparts, impose control of immigration on the Southern boarder with Mexico, open dialogue on denuclearrization with NK, curb stomp Iran and take China to task for it's theft of IP, mercantilism, unfair trade policies and currency manipulation, all his silliness - much of what it is about was and is irrelevant - I came to support not him but the executive and his administration's policies.

My view is that while I think your criticisms and mockery of Trump aren't entirely without merit, you've both let your strong distaste for him personally, unduly influence the perception of the strategic and tactical benefits of his administration's policies. Early in the Trump presidency, I would have been with both of you to one degree or another. But as time went by and I took the time to carefully read position papers on the Trump administration's Foreign Policy and National Defense strategy, I found both of them to be consistent with my view of the present global reality. So, that's why my defense of the executive in taking steps to implement those strategies emerged.

Regardless of our differences, the exchanges here between us have been useful and I respect both of your takes ...... even if you both are fucking deluded and overly influenced by the media's unending, mostly irrelevant harangue of PDJT. Heh.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jeff, for yet another perspective, you might want to give this thread from Brett McGurk a chance. He served as Envoy to Iraq for several years under Obama and was on Bush's National Security Council. Trump's people kept him on but he resigned late last year around the same time Mattis did over Trump's declaration to pull all troops out of Syria (which he backed down from).

That may be enough for you to dismiss him entirely as a Trump-hater. But if you want another perspective, it's worthwhile. I'd post the Foreign Affairs piece but it's a pay article only.

Contrary to what I take away from your posts, McGurk doesn't think the Administration has been pursuing a cohesive Iran strategy at all. He thinks there are at least three separate voices speaking: Bolton, Pompeo, and Trump, and foreign nations, including Iran, aren't sure which one is the "real" position of the United States. Bolton is war war war, Trump is much more dovish and "let's make a deal", and Pompeo is somewhere in between.

In the past two weeks the three men have made the following pronouncements:

* Trump has said he doesn't want regime change. Just wants a new deal to keep ALL of Iran's military aggression in check and not just the nuclear ones.
* Pompeo wants Iran to agree to talks immediately without preconditions
* Bolton said Iran's "40-year reign of terror" must come to an end and said that the Ayatollah better enjoy this year's anniversary of the Iranian Revolution because he won't get many more.

Trump was also apparently using Shinzo Abe as a backchannel to the Ayatollah and that completely fell apart when Bolton announced a bunch of new sanctions just days before Abe arrived in Iran. Did Bolton do that on his own? Did Trump or Abe know that was going to happen? We'll likely never know

[Ghengis Jon]

Jeff, I'm not saying Trump is Hitler. I'm saying that an attitude when large masses of people overlook the frequent criminal and/or irrational behaviors of a political leader because of some (relatively) singular perceived correct opinion/action, it is the nation and the national society that suffers. It gives a free pass for larger criminal activities and deeper buffoonery due to being on the 'right side' of a few selective policies. Single issue voters can potentially be just as damaging. Sadly, Trump takes this to the nth degree. Despite having almost no redeeming value to society in general and America in particular, Trump has some immovable tribal support. Politically, this nation has devolved into being Afganistan ver 2.0.

Position papers are like party platforms. General pie-in-the-sky bullshit aimed solely at garnering support and rarely a reflection of real world reality. I doubt the administration has codified Trump's preference of sucking off murderers like Putin, Kim, and MBS. Or how punishing American business with a Trump Tax is going to somehow bend China to his will. Or his irrational focus on rolling back everything the previous administration has accomplished, down to an absurd level. (The Tubman on the 20 is a perfect example.) Or alienating our allies needlessly. And ESPECIALLY his active contempt for the law.

[Dr. Strangelove]

But as the Trump administration took steps to level the playing field on trade with it's European and North American counterparts

I didn't want to sidetrack Iran talk but...

There's no doubt that from the perspective of a Michigan or Ohio autoworker, America has been getting "screwed" in our trading deals but the notion overall that we've been screwed so badly in these deals isn't true and is buying into the protectionist premise. There's plenty of countries that would say we are screwing them. I mean, I'd bet plenty of Carribbean and South American countries have a bone to pick over sugar tariffs that we've used for two centuries to protect us from cheaper foreign sugar

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-18/u-s-sugar-industry-is-exhibit-a-of-tariff-favoritism

[Dr. Strangelove]

*sigh*...he just won't let me stick to serious issues

30 years after Justice Scalia declared flag-burning to be protected speech, Trump raises the specter of a flag-burning Amendment. He undoubtedly views this as a big 'culture war' winner for him.

Realistically, of course, you'd need a constitutional Amendment. Which requires a 2/3 vote by BOTH HOUSES of Congress. And then 3/4 of all state legislatures have to agree. It ain't happening. Even plenty of Republicans won't vote to criminalize this.

[Jeff Buchanan]

DSL, thanks for the link. I read it in it's entirety. I certainly do not dismiss McGurk as a "Trump Hater." He has valid points ....... when you come from the viewpoint that the liberal world order is alive and well.......something entrenched employees at State have a stake in. McGurk is also singing a tune that mostly resonates with the anti-Trump media who will nod their heads, yes, yes, when he tweets or writes an article critical of Trump's FP. That encourages a continuing stream of the same kinds of thoughts, most of them unchallenged.

My view is that the liberal world order is an anachronism in a changing world and that there is a discernible emergence of global "Balkinization" involving a competition between the great powers, namely China, Russia and the US. These powers are seeking to establish spheres of influence regionally and internationally. Trump's (or probably Bolton's is more accurate) FP recognizes this.

Bolton would likely dismiss McGurk and visa-versa but who survived as an adviser and potential mitigator of Trump's impulsiveness in matters of state? Meanwhile McGurk writes about what should be happening rather than having an impact on what is happening. Bolton has, IMO, pluses and minuses - like just about every Shakespearean character. I think he is right about global realities and wrong about military confrontation as a natural extension of being unable to extract concessions from an adversary assuming I have this right about him.The capacity of the US to overwhelm peer adversaries like Russia or China in a decisive way is another discussion and there is plenty of material on US Military readiness that applies. Bolton's influence on Trump's impulsiveness is debatable too but there is no debate that Bolton is very intelligent and can be exceptionally shrewd, if not acerbic, in undertaking negotiations with America's enemies whether you agree with his approach or not.

The article below presents a decent picture of who Bolton is according to the author's perception of him. I think the best part about it is that the author does not apply the aura of horror about Bolton that exists and that, I think, tends to obscure his many positives. I also liked the final paragraph's in the article where he discusses the many ways the Trump administration's FP could go catastrophically wrong or, OTH, bring about changes on many levels that favor US interests. You will recall how I have acknowledged the tight rope being walked by this administration with regard to it's policies but at the same time recognized this is the first administration since Reagan's that has pushed back in any meaningful way.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...dviser/583246/ By contrast, (Bolton thinks) treaties and alliances (need)ed unsentimental evaluation. I(Bolton) replied,Bolton said,

Many anti-Trumpers think John Bolton is a flaming idiot who will lead the US to Armageddon. I don't share that view but rather the one expressed by the Russian on Putin's team, a pragmatic diplomat. Can he a bit scary? Maybe, maybe not, but, I want him at the negotiating table on the American side with the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and especially the Iranians. Surprise and of course, none of them want Bolton facing off with them across the negotiating table at all. That's not because he is an idiot. It is because he puts the interests of the United States on a par with those he is negotiating with. That is a clear departure from the 8 years of the conciliatory nature of the Obama administration's FP.

Jon, the documents I have linked to in this forum and that you term as ...... "General pie-in-the-sky bullshit aimed solely at garnering support and rarely a reflection of real world reality" are, in fact, documents that reflect the analysis of the DOD and State Departments. The positions and recommendations in these publications are formed based on the best information available from multiple reliable sources (see references within them). Of course, they are not without political bias. They are being written for and by the Trump administration. You may not like that and/or disagree with their take and that's fine but, it's not made up shit with no basis in fact. There are also plenty of "belt-way" conservative organizations that write extensively on foreign and defense policy. I read a lot this stuff. More importantly all of the documents and position papers I have knowledge of reflect a global view that I agree with and you may not. Depends on who and what you read. Still, the best thing about the interchange here between all of us is that we are forced, at least I am, to read stuff that I may not have seen or threaten to move the needle one way or the other for me on important issues.

[Dr. Strangelove]

There's too much in your post to address it all without creating an equally long post but I'll just say that I don't believe the post-WWII order is dead. And I don't believe that Bolton's worldview of nationalist Realpolitik is any less of an anachronism. You can only balance a realpolitik foreign policy/power structure for so long before it starts falling apart. People remember that you betrayed them or hung them out to dry for your own interests and eventually there are no potential allies left. The master of Realpolitik himself, Bismarck, found himself shoved out of power overnight by an immature, pompous twit of a man, and no one cried for Bismarck because he had stabbed everyone in the back at one point or another.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks for taking the time to read my posts. This is hard stuff to discuss on an internet forum. I'd enjoy sitting down with you + whoever you'd like with me and Hannibal (who is way more right than talent or myself it would seem) or talent who'd I'd label as a pragmatic conservative with hard right leaning tendencies ..... and these two descriptors of posters here ignore the ill-advised pigeon holing of political views. I've met both these two in person but never to discuss politics. Just football ....... way easier and fuck osu.

Having said that, I think you'd align with international liberalist thinking. There's a good deal of decent writing that debunks that and, of course, I lap it up. By the same token there is plenty of decent attacks on Bolton and his world view that invokes the notion of Balkinization and competition between the major powers in a struggle for regional and global influence. I'm with Bolton's take at the moment but you make a good point regarding Bismarck. Different time, different context perhaps making the two an apples and oranges comparison with little equivalence. I'll have to read a little bit to see.