#2 2017-08-24 16:40:55
Emmeran wrote:
In the ashes a long vanquished foe begins to stir, gigantic fuck up Mr. Trump.
This has long been my hunch about the outcome of Putin's attempts to redraw the European map -- a reawakened Germany intent on arming itself. In the absence of American leadership I think Germany could -- and very well might -- develop nuclear weapons of its own. If that happens, the Russian atomic threat is reduced to the simple stalemate of MAD. The real conflict would go on in other theaters.
Modern wars are fought using stock markets and banks, Russia, with an economy the size of Spain's, would not stand a chance. If I were Putin, this would keep me tossing and turning at night.
Offline
#3 2017-08-24 17:31:11
Smudge wrote:
This has long been my hunch about the outcome of Putin's attempts to redraw the European map -- a reawakened Germany intent on arming itself. In the absence of American leadership I think Germany could -- and very well might -- develop nuclear weapons of its own. If that happens, the Russian atomic threat is reduced to the simple stalemate of MAD. The real conflict would go on in other theaters.
Modern wars are fought using stock markets and banks, Russia, with an economy the size of Spain's, would not stand a chance. If I were Putin, this would keep me tossing and turning at night.
Putin is perhaps the best strategist we've seen in centuries. Do not under estimate this person.
Offline
#4 2017-08-24 19:05:17
Emmeran wrote:
Smudge wrote:
This has long been my hunch about the outcome of Putin's attempts to redraw the European map -- a reawakened Germany intent on arming itself. In the absence of American leadership I think Germany could -- and very well might -- develop nuclear weapons of its own. If that happens, the Russian atomic threat is reduced to the simple stalemate of MAD. The real conflict would go on in other theaters.
Modern wars are fought using stock markets and banks, Russia, with an economy the size of Spain's, would not stand a chance. If I were Putin, this would keep me tossing and turning at night.Putin is perhaps the best strategist we've seen in centuries. Do not under estimate this person.
....yeppers.........beware da 'bear'
Offline
#5 2017-08-24 19:49:56
Emmeran wrote:
Putin is perhaps the best strategist we've seen in centuries. Do not under estimate this person.
Just another tinpot shitweasel bankrupting a nation notorious for its misrule.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#6 2017-08-24 20:56:56
choad wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Putin is perhaps the best strategist we've seen in centuries. Do not under estimate this person.
https://cruelery.com/sidepic/putin.ukraine.siers.png
Just another tinpot shitweasel bankrupting a nation notorious for its misrule.
Nope, that is what he wants you to think. Please recall that this guy ran East Germany as the KGB Master back before the wall fell, in his early thirty's.
Do Not Underestimate Your Foe.
Edit: Trump thought he knew what he was up against, Putin now owns both Trump and HRC. Fucker is really, really good.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Last edited by Emmeran (2017-08-24 20:58:39)
Offline
#7 2017-08-25 00:21:11
Emmeran wrote:
Trump thought he knew what he was up against, Putin now owns both Trump and HRC.
Those two idiots speak for themselves.
There's no viable leadership where everything's pay4play complicit but that's another issue entirely.
Offline
#9 2017-08-25 11:43:52
Yep, they had a chance to stand behind generations of Americans to come after the housing bubble debacle (actually a credit bubble, the housing industry was fine) by putting a bunch of people in jail and breaking up the big banks. Instead they jailed one Indian dude nobody have ever heard of for profiting less than the big boys would do in a day. They then immediately blamed the whole thing on Immigrants and the poor and last I heard are continuing to try and open up the derivatives market and have gone back to packaging their worthless CDOs under the new name of a "bespoke tranche opportunity".
Offline
#10 2017-08-25 11:57:28
Baywolfe wrote:
Yep, they had a chance to stand behind generations of Americans to come after the housing bubble debacle (actually a credit bubble, the housing industry was fine) by putting a bunch of people in jail and breaking up the big banks. Instead they jailed one Indian dude nobody have ever heard of for profiting less than the big boys would do in a day. They then immediately blamed the whole thing on Immigrants and the poor and last I heard are continuing to try and open up the derivatives market and have gone back to packaging their worthless CDOs under the new name of a "bespoke tranche opportunity".
One of the few criticisms that Obama actually deserves is that he failed us by refusing to prosecute those who were most responsible for the worst financial disaster since the Depression. And even his massively powerful intellect failed him when he missed the fact that by not firmly blaming those who were actually responsible, he left the door open for being blamed himself, and having it spread around to others who were also innocent.
When most people lose most of what they have, in hindsight, maybe it's not the best idea to just brush off the trousers and say "Well, let's just forgive and forget." Especially when the people who did the damage continued to profit, even from the destruction of other people's lives. The people wanted blood, and they deserved it.
Years from now, when the write the history, they will talk about the stunning act of cognitive judo the right wing pulled off by getting the blame for America's financial woes and income disparity blamed on the Democrats -- who were actually the only ones fighting against the trends which destroyed the middle class. Shame on Obama for making easier for them to do this by refusing to give the public a real villain. And shame on the average dim witted American for believing that the guy behind the curtain was telling them the truth. Stupidity has consequences, and in this case those may well include the destruction of the most powerful nation in history. That's the trend we're on, and it's not clear at this point that we're going to be able to self correct.
Hillary Clinton was a terrible campaigner, and that's the biggest reason she lost the election. But she was NOT the scheming, corrupt, corporate enabler that the right wing media -- successfully -- portrayed her as.
Last edited by Smudge (2017-08-25 12:47:42)
Offline
#11 2017-08-25 14:57:49
Smudge wrote:
Hillary Clinton was a terrible campaigner, and that's the biggest reason she lost the election. But she was NOT the scheming, corrupt, corporate enabler that the right wing media -- successfully -- portrayed her as.
No, but she was in the pockets of big banks. But then so is everybody except, ironically, maybe Trump.
Offline
#12 2017-08-25 15:12:25
Baywolfe wrote:
Smudge wrote:
Hillary Clinton was a terrible campaigner, and that's the biggest reason she lost the election. But she was NOT the scheming, corrupt, corporate enabler that the right wing media -- successfully -- portrayed her as.
No, but she was in the pockets of big banks. But then so is everybody except, ironically, maybe Trump.
Big money doesn't trust Trump, he had to take money from the Russians.
Offline
#13 2017-08-25 15:21:07
Baywolfe wrote:
Smudge wrote:
Hillary Clinton was a terrible campaigner, and that's the biggest reason she lost the election. But she was NOT the scheming, corrupt, corporate enabler that the right wing media -- successfully -- portrayed her as.
No, but she was in the pockets of big banks. But then so is everybody except, ironically, maybe Trump.
You can't be a politician in America without being to some extent involved in a huge way with corporate America. So let's not set an unreasonable standard that nobody can practically reach. And whether Trump is "in bed" with banks is not really important, because he's going to continue IN A HUGE WAY the process of shifting wealth away from everyone except the already wealthy. Isn't that what we're really trying to talk about, and isn't that what really matters?
I think what's significant, rather than merely linking symbols to people, is to look at politician's policy positions, and their track record. Based on Clinton's, I was very comfortable with where she wanted to go, and I believed she would have continued to support the same values which she stressed for her entire career.
Offline
#14 2017-08-25 15:43:18
Smudge wrote:
Baywolfe wrote:
Smudge wrote:
Hillary Clinton was a terrible campaigner, and that's the biggest reason she lost the election. But she was NOT the scheming, corrupt, corporate enabler that the right wing media -- successfully -- portrayed her as.
No, but she was in the pockets of big banks. But then so is everybody except, ironically, maybe Trump.
You can't be a politician in America without being to some extent involved in a huge way with corporate America. So let's not set an unreasonable standard that nobody can practically reach. And whether Trump is "in bed" with banks is not really important, because he's going to continue IN A HUGE WAY the process of shifting wealth away from everyone except the already wealthy. Isn't that what we're really trying to talk about, and isn't that what really matters?
I think what's significant, rather than merely linking symbols to people, is to look at politician's policy positions, and their track record. Based on Clinton's, I was very comfortable with where she wanted to go, and I believed she would have continued to support the same values which she stressed for her entire career.
Well, Dodd/Frank was definitely a step in the right direction. It's amazing the changes that actually have been put in behind the scenes. For example Citibank was at one time leveraged at 35:1, today they're around 10:1. The rest of the world, however, is in deep shit with their banks especially Europe.
Trump is moving the money to the Industrialized Military Complex, which obviously includes the wealthy. But even if he's kicked to the curb there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm from the GOP in general in escalating existing conflicts and trying to open up one or two more. This is the main push behind "getting rid of socialism" it siphons money off the arms deals.
Offline
#15 2017-08-25 15:53:15
Baywolfe wrote:
Trump is moving the money to the Industrialized Military Complex, which obviously includes the wealthy. But even if he's kicked to the curb there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm from the GOP in general in escalating existing conflicts and trying to open up one or two more. This is the main push behind "getting rid of socialism" it siphons money off the arms deals.
I think Trump is following the classic Fascist formula right down the line and without any significant variation of novelty. The structure of our government means that he'll have difficulty going past certain limits, but even there, I wouldn't relax my guard for a moment. I think the big move comes after Trump engineers a situation which allows him to declare marshal law, and exert personal control over the courts and legislature. A major existential war would work nicely. It's not clear that he will succeed, or how far he will get, but he's going to keep trying. The surprise for me is that it's all so out in the open.
We could be Italy between the wars. Trump is a Fascist, and he's working the Fascist playbook and following it to the letter.
Last edited by Smudge (2017-08-25 18:33:56)
Offline
#16 2017-08-25 22:10:13
I think Trump is an empty suit with large puppet strings coming out the back.
Offline
#19 2017-09-03 20:33:05
The world isn't going to listen to President Mickey J. Mouse if he gets up and shakes his fist, but at least you'd hope these guys still have some respect in the world. Yes, their solution is going to be to spend more than the already 50%+ of all Federal Discretionary Spending, and yes they are part of the problem and not the solution, but right now better people who are actually in touch with reality than the psychopath at the top.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#21 2017-09-20 15:49:00
Baywolfe wrote:
That's only because social program spending isn't "discretionary". It's been carefully locked down by generations of votes bought and sold.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline