Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 reds8n wrote:
err... IIRC 9/11 was seen as sufficient justification for NATO members to be called upon.

-- and I have no issue there it was a terrible thing.

And it was clearly an unprovoked attack against the American people.

... ..and TBF I think the USA has cause to say that some of the NATO members need to step their game up and contribute more both manpower and $/£/whatever wise.

And again no argument there, however provoking China and thereby creating or playing into a situation in which they are a 'victim' is not going to play well for invoking the mutual defence/aid detailed in the treaty.

China has always maintained a slow burn, long term view of international affairs. It's pervaded their dealings with the West since more or less time immemorable; their culture is not one which appreciates short, sharp shocks.

In contemporary terms, that has been equivalent to gradually growing economic and military dominance locally. The idea being that if they acquire those things slowly, with the pressure being almost imperceptible over several decades, the West will almost always give way slightly on most issues rather than risk any sort of direct conflict. Then it's all change in the governments of the West every five-ten years, and the minor advances in Chinese position are regarded as the new status quo abroad so new minor advances can be made.

It's the advantage of central planning and autocracy over what is effectively the short-termist risk averse political structures we have here in the West. But it has its own flaws, namely that it cannot react well to sudden, sharp changes in short-term circumstance.

The problem is that the Chinese position is still nowhere near strong enough currently to conceivably militarily smack down the US even locally at this stage. They've done their best to develop carrier killer missiles, but they're far from perfected. What's more, the American military is well aware of that fact, and being overactive as it is, has worked hard on developing countermeasures to them, both physical and electronic. All those taxpayer dollars do go somewhere, after all. Meanwhile, any nuclear exchange, and China will be wiped off the face of the Earth. In other words, any potential military conflict with the US is still a good couple of decades down the line on the Chinese long term plan.

Right now, Trump is being almost the stereotypical American. Blunt, forceful, thin skinned, and stubborn. If China raises one, he will raise two. And that leaves them in a massive dilemma. They can't step back at all. Saving face (a national obsession), the necessity of being seen to be in control and powerful (a tenet of any autocratic government), and mild ingrained racism (China is only real civilisation to them) prevent that. But to try and behave aggressively in any way other than words will likely result in China being slammed back into the stone age. Nuclear warfare would literally eliminate their country, and even conventional would eventually end with the US airforce trashing all their nice new cities.

That leaves them one option; namely shouting louder and squaring up more aggressively publicly in the hope Trump takes the hint. Then at the same time, try to placate him in the backroom with some sort of token concession or two until another crisis comes along to distract him. Naturally, the risk is that Trump, being an unknown factor, will spurn the backroom, and keep raising two for every one in public. We'll see what results, I suppose.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html

It's almost like Trump is the Executive Order writing "I'm the King" president that the people claimed Obama would be.

Good. Good. The decline is increasing pace.

This is what we wanted.

Mitochondria wrote:
Good. Good. The decline is increasing pace.

This is what we wanted.

The decline in what? Decency? Sensible discourse? Liberty? Statesmanship? Diversity? Facts? Truth?

Also who is 'we'? Stormfront? David Duke? That Nazi-esque guy who wants 'peaceful genocide' and keeps getting punched?

He never answers questions, just ignore his daily swoop and poop.

Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

If you wanted a dystopian malfunctioning Republican led government based on "morals" you could have just moved to Oklahoma, you didn't need to ruin the country.

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

Says the person posting on a forum about toy soldiers, where the one of the most popular companies sell tiny pieces of plastic for $35.

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

You turkey...

 d-usa wrote:
If you wanted a dystopian malfunctioning Republican led government based on "morals" you could have just moved to Oklahoma, you didn't need to ruin the country.

Not only that but really the description doesn't even fit the USA at any point in time, honestly. It is some weird castle built on clouds originating from a fever dream. I was reminded that I forgot to add 'fools' and 'uneducated/under-educated' to the list, so it was helpful in that regard.

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

Lol. I knew there was a reason you,were blocked. You are insane.

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

If you imagine yourself to be counted among the fittest in that scenario, I think you're in for a rough time

 Zywus wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

If you imagine yourself to be counted among the fittest in that scenario, I think you're in for a rough time

It's typical anarcho-capitalist horse-hockey, but this time with added "liberals are evil".

GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING/NOTE:

Disingenuous/not in good faith posting for the purpose of...trolling and/or flamebaiting?

It'll be marked as either Spam or breaking Rule #1 and treated accordingly.

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

No. It'll just be you in that private Idaho.

We're already seeing the "true" populist backlash against Trump's idiocy. He doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't have the majority on his side. One week in office and the lowest approval rating ever at this point. Stand up. Stop the nonsense in it's tracks. The statue of liberty is not "closed for business". Want to just say "meh" to the absolutely un-American actions he's taking? Fine, join the Vichy French as history's totalitarian lap dog puppet. History will be watching.


On a somewhat serious note that just got glanced over.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gives-bannon-nsc-role/ar-AAmmAGL?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

"In one of three executive actions Saturday, President Trump reshuffled the National Security Council to include his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, and limited the roles of the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Hey Frazz, still think my comparing Bannon to Goebbels and his Ministry of Propaganda a knee-jerk? Let's see, limit the roles of the actual director of NI as well as the chairman of the JSC on the NSC, while elevating an aide, with immediate ties to a right-wing alt-news website doesn't smack of continued media and information manipulation to you? Wake up people! This is happening now.

I wish I had a £10 note for every time I've said this,

but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.

Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?

America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.

That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.

Very strange.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wish I had a £10 note for every time I've said this,

but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.

Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?

America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.

That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.

Very strange.

Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wish I had a £10 note for every time I've said this,

but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.

Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?

America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.

That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.

Very strange.

Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.

Obviously I'm an outsider on this, but it often amazes me how ignorant some Americans (not dakka Americans) are about their own history.

Conservatives were the loyalists who supported King George III

Liberals and radicals like Sam Adams, John Adams etc etc were the radicals and the liberals upholding the old English tradition of Liberalism and radicalism, and thus, became rebels.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wish I had a £10 note for every time I've said this,

but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.

Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?

America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.

That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.

Very strange.

Saying that an anarchist is not mainstream is "a prime example" of not knowing what the left-wing/liberalism is? Oh, please elaborate.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wish I had a £10 note for every time I've said this,

but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.

Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?

America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.

That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.

Very strange.

Saying that an anarchist is not mainstream is "a prime example" of not knowing what the left-wing/liberalism is? Oh, please elaborate.

Who said anything about anarchists?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wish I had a £10 note for every time I've said this,

but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.

Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?

America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.

That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.

Very strange.

Saying that an anarchist is not mainstream is "a prime example" of not knowing what the left-wing/liberalism is? Oh, please elaborate.

Who said anything about anarchists?

I was directly calling out the "burn it all down" anarchist mantra of a previous poster in my response and you noted that, in response to my post that "...a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's(me) point being a prime example."

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

No. It'll just be you in that private Idaho.

We're already seeing the "true" populist backlash against Trump's idiocy. He doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't have the majority on his side. One week in office and the lowest approval rating ever at this point. Stand up. Stop the nonsense in it's tracks. Tnow.

The "true" populist backlash happened in November.

Notice how no one is spamming articles about how well Trump is doing? How he is quickly and genuinely implementing policy he enumerated upon while campaigning? How he is effectively implementing the famous, "I have a pen and a telephone" strategy?

Just wait until he turns the weaponized IRS upon the liberal tax evasion organizations. Something Obama did to great effect during his term.

Because the powerless throw shade and have tantrums. The people getting it done, just get it done.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wish I had a £10 note for every time I've said this,

but a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's point being a prime example.

Where did we reach the stage that words like the Left and Liberal were so grossly distorted, and thus lost their true meaning?

America is a Liberal country. It believes in free markets, used to believe in open borders (immigrants building the country) and famously, it is liberal enough to trust its citizens with firearms and free speech.

That is a text book definition of liberalism, but weirdly, the word has become distorted and perverted.

Very strange.

Saying that an anarchist is not mainstream is "a prime example" of not knowing what the left-wing/liberalism is? Oh, please elaborate.

Who said anything about anarchists?

I was directly calling out the "burn it all down" anarchist mantra of a previous poster in my response and you noted that, in response to my post that "...a lot of Americans really have no idea what the left-wing is, the above poster's(me) point being a prime example."

Apologies. You were not the target of my wrath



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mitochondria wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

No. It'll just be you in that private Idaho.

We're already seeing the "true" populist backlash against Trump's idiocy. He doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't have the majority on his side. One week in office and the lowest approval rating ever at this point. Stand up. Stop the nonsense in it's tracks. Tnow.

The "true" populist backlash happened in November.

Notice how no one is spamming articles about how well Trump is doing? How he is quickly and genuinely implementing policy he enumerated upon while campaigning? How he is effectively implementing the famous, "I have a pen and a telephone" strategy?

Just wait until he turns the weaponized IRS upon the liberal tax evasion organizations. Something Obama did to great effect during his term.

Because the powerless throw shade and have tantrums. The people getting it done, just get it done.

A populist backlash that got 3 million less votes than its opponent!

Mitochondria wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Total societal collapse. Total governmental collapse.

Survival of the fittest. A hard reset and an opportunity to clear the laws, tax code, and bureacracy once and for all.

Rewrite the Constitution with appropriate safeguards.

We were strong when we did not tolerate the moral debauchery of the left.

However, we are now too deep into the tolerance/acceptance/celebration cycle of moral and societal decay brought about by the subversive "best intentions" of the left.

Time to just sink it to the bottom and start over.

No. It'll just be you in that private Idaho.

We're already seeing the "true" populist backlash against Trump's idiocy. He doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't have the majority on his side. One week in office and the lowest approval rating ever at this point. Stand up. Stop the nonsense in it's tracks. Tnow.

The "true" populist backlash happened in November.

Notice how no one is spamming articles about how well Trump is doing? How he is quickly and genuinely implementing policy he enumerated upon while campaigning? How he is effectively implementing the famous, "I have a pen and a telephone" strategy?

Just wait until he turns the weaponized IRS upon the liberal tax evasion organizations. Something Obama did to great effect during his term.

Because the powerless throw shade and have tantrums. The people getting it done, just get it done.

By your definition then, Trump is truly a powerless individual. He throws a twitter tantrum every time somebody says "boo" to him and he has a minister of propaganda throwing shade, aka, manipulating the message and limiting the open flow of information from the government to the people. That , is the weak sauce in this room.

Trump is going to turn out to be the exact thing the liberals/Democrats have needed. A strong message, purpose and call to action. Clinton failed utterly to energize the Democrat side of the equation, but Trump is doing a better job at it than anything I've seen since '08.


****DINLT**** Wrath I can play with, but I just couldn't connect the dots to your response. Thanks for clearing that up!

Trump truly is doing everything that people worried about Obama doing. Turns out they didn't have a problem with a Cult of Personality driven ideologically obsessed power hungry President pushing his own agenda via executive orders, threatening to use the power of the Federal Government to control the movements and thoughts of law abiding folks. They just had a problem if they didn't agree with the ideology of the Emperor.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-immigrant-policy-social-media-contacts/index.html

 d-usa wrote:
Trump truly is doing everything that people worried about Obama doing. Turns out they didn't have a problem with a Cult of Personality driven ideologically obsessed power hungry President pushing his own agenda via executive orders, threatening to use the power of the Federal Government to control the movements and thoughts of law abiding folks. They just had a problem if they didn't agree with the ideology of the Emperor.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-immigrant-policy-social-media-contacts/index.html

On the bright side, he's taking body blow after body blow and his already lackluster approval keeps dropping; The one thing Huffpost does really well. At the rate he's going we might actually have hope of getting rid of him in 2020.

 d-usa wrote:
Trump truly is doing everything that people worried about Obama doing. Turns out they didn't have a problem with a Cult of Personality driven ideologically obsessed power hungry President pushing his own agenda via executive orders, threatening to use the power of the Federal Government to control the movements and thoughts of law abiding folks. They just had a problem if they didn't agree with the ideology of the Emperor.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-immigrant-policy-social-media-contacts/index.html

We've just had a high profile court case in Britain which was about defending Parliamentary sovereignty in the face of our Prime Minister issuing an executive order.

Our Supreme Court ruled in Parliament's favour. The issue was about who had the power to activate the withdrawal process from the European union: Parliament or the Prime Minister.

And yet, nobody asked the logical question: why didn't parliament defend its own sovereignty?

I make this point because I see something similar happening in the USA. If the executive is too powerful, why isn't the Congress doing its job and reeling POTUS in?

This is an old issue that has been going on for decades: the over reach of the executive, but is Congress too weak, or is it like you say, the GOP are hypocrites?

They don't mind it when one of their own does it, but hate it when Democrats do it.

I'd like to think that both parties could put partisan differences aside and see the bigger picture i.e a too powerful POTUS is not good for the Republic.

I think for the past 4 years it was partially because the GOP was actually scared to take a real position with consequences on anything. It's easy enough to talk about your positions, but harder when you actually enact them and face potential consequences.

Take Syria for example, they complained about whatever it was Obama did. But they never enacted a strategy of their own, passed an authorization of force or a demand that force stop, or anything along that line. Even after Obama asked them to, they did nothing. It's easy to talk, but if you don't do anything you are not responsible for any consequences due to your action. Same thing with the ACA. They repealed t how many times? They did that knowing that it wouldn't make it through, so there were no consequences. They didn't actually try to pass any fixes, because that would entail consequences because then it's "their bill".

They have spend years now in opposition to governing, rather than govern, even though they were the majority party. Now they don't know how to govern, or they would have had a replacement bill for the ACA ready to go, considering it's been their single most important legislative issue for 6 years now.

They didn't oppose executive overreach because they were okay with it, the reason they didn't oppose it was simply that it's easier to let them have the power and complain about the consequences of their actions than it would have been to keep that power and face consequences for your own actions.

 d-usa wrote:
I think for the past 4 years it was partially because the GOP was actually scared to take a real position with consequences on anything. It's easy enough to talk about your positions, but harder when you actually enact them and face potential consequences.

Take Syria for example, they complained about whatever it was Obama did. But they never enacted a strategy of their own, passed an authorization of force or a demand that force stop, or anything along that line. Even after Obama asked them to, they did nothing. It's easy to talk, but if you don't do anything you are not responsible for any consequences due to your action. Same thing with the ACA. They repealed t how many times? They did that knowing that it wouldn't make it through, so there were no consequences. They didn't actually try to pass any fixes, because that would entail consequences because then it's "their bill".

They have spend years now in opposition to governing, rather than govern, even though they were the majority party. Now they don't know how to govern, or they would have had a replacement bill for the ACA ready to go, considering it's been their single most important legislative issue for 6 years now.

They didn't oppose executive overreach because they were okay with it, the reason they didn't oppose it was simply that it's easier to let them have the power and complain about the consequences of their actions than it would have been to keep that power and face consequences for your own actions.

A good point about Syria and ACA, and here's an expansion on that point:

I sat through the Senate and Congressional oversight committees on the Iran Nuclear deal.

I had to wait for a plumber to turn up and had nothing else to do that day.

Point is, John Kerry really turned the tables on the GOP that day.

Kerry sat through a least a dozen GOP Senators/Congress men grandstanding about how bad a deal it was, and then Kerry shot them down in flames, simply by asking, what would you have done?

The GOP had no answer!

When Kerry pointed out that the deal was almost identical to what GW Bush proposed, the GOP were silent. The silence spoke volumes.

I think you're right. They snipe from the sidelines, but they have nothing to offer as an alternative.