Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

[luutzu]

As I mentioned Luutzu, all three were shot, by the stalinists.

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and John Paul II all survived assassination attempts, and brought down Soviet Communism

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/


As the left surges back, Marxism’s bloody legacy is covered up

https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/as-the-left-surges-back-marxisms-bloody-legacy-is-covered-up/

Just wondering how exactly did Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope "brought down Soviet Communism"?

How did they do it? Exactly?

My understanding, and I could be wrong 'cause it was never assigned reading... but I thought that the Soviets collapsed because it went bankrupt. Not because the mighty three fought it and won.

Sure, there's that theory of Reagan waging a bunch of "wars" and arms races, luring the Soviets into outdoing the US/West and so sent it broke. I'm sure sure how true that is though.

I thought it was just the usual imperial expansion, taking neighbouring countries, liberating barbarians (and capitalists), getting into quagmires etc., that eventually broke the treasury and call for a retreat.

I did know a bit about Mikhail Gorbachev agreeing with Bush Snr (the smart one) and James Baker to let East Germany uniting back with West Germany. All on the promise that the West will not move "an inch" east... which it immediately sets about doing and is now at the gates of Moscow.

That, to me, sounds like the Soviets leadership recognising that endless wars and imperialism might not doing them any more favour. So they drew up their borders, try to keep what they've taken and call it a day.

And here's the thing... The Soviets didn't go completely broke and become a poor laughing stock because of its godless Communism. It get to that state because "capitalism" happened to it under Yeltsin.

Yes, the drunk one who got democratically elected under new Russia after the Soviet collapse.

Under American advise, Yeltsin privatise practically all of Russia's industries. Hand it to a handful of friends who know friends who takes the cash out of Russia.

 

[luutzu]

Donald Trump shouldn't be President for a 1001 reasons. 1002 if you count his (alleged) sexual deviance.
Yep practically every President has had some irregularity in their personal lives. Whether its President Rosovelts mistress, President Kennedys myriad affairs and so on.

In my view what takes Donald Trumps behaviour into a totally different league is the alleged use of jealousy and revenge to get iunto bed with his friends wives. I reckon that is pretty beathtaking. It will be interesting to see what sort of fallout comes from that little bombshell.

The critical question is whether he goes Wag the Dog and tries to start a war to deflect attention. Certainly has plenty of opportunity.

Only p**sies starts A war.

Trump's going to start a few wars.

Iran is under way.

Parkistan just got its "aid" cut. That's going to make the buying and bribes... easier? I mean, China is buying Pakistan with both private cash and serious investment in ports and rails linking Pakistan into China... now Trump's bright idea is to just cut the cash they've been giving to buy some influence?

I guess we can't say there's a war with Palestine because it's not a country, not in the eyes of Trump and Bibi anyway.

Then there's North Korea; a few other wars under the radar in Africa.

 

[moXJO]

Just wondering how exactly did Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope "brought down Soviet Communism"?

How did they do it? Exactly?

My understanding, and I could be wrong 'cause it was never assigned reading... but I thought that the Soviets collapsed because it went bankrupt. Not because the mighty three fought it and won.

Sure, there's that theory of Reagan waging a bunch of "wars" and arms races, luring the Soviets into outdoing the US/West and so sent it broke. I'm sure sure how true that is though.

I thought it was just the usual imperial expansion, taking neighbouring countries, liberating barbarians (and capitalists), getting into quagmires etc., that eventually broke the treasury and call for a retreat.

I did know a bit about Mikhail Gorbachev agreeing with Bush Snr (the smart one) and James Baker to let East Germany uniting back with West Germany. All on the promise that the West will not move "an inch" east... which it immediately sets about doing and is now at the gates of Moscow.

That, to me, sounds like the Soviets leadership recognising that endless wars and imperialism might not doing them any more favour. So they drew up their borders, try to keep what they've taken and call it a day.

And here's the thing... The Soviets didn't go completely broke and become a poor laughing stock because of its godless Communism. It get to that state because "capitalism" happened to it under Yeltsin.

Yes, the drunk one who got democratically elected under new Russia after the Soviet collapse.

Under American advise, Yeltsin privatise practically all of Russia's industries. Hand it to a handful of friends who know friends who takes the cash out of Russia.

Communism is what did them in. Gorbachev tried to modernise communism the people got a taste of freedom and bye bye communist oppression.
US was weakening their economy through santions and driving the oil price down. So yes it was all to do with Regan Thatcher etc.
Russia was an oppressive regime and the people had enough.
Nothing to do with capitalism in Russia.

 

[basilio]

I'm wondering where Melania Trump stands in all these revelations - particularly where Donald is jumping his friends wives by setting up the speaker phone scenarios.

I think she could just snap call up Mueller, say she had had enough and wants to turn. Whether she jumps first or we see the inevitable confession/confirmation from one of Don's friends waits to be seen.

I think there should be a (betting) book on this scenario. ..

 

[luutzu]

Communism is what did them in. Gorbachev tried to modernise communism the people got a taste of freedom and bye bye communist oppression.
US was weakening their economy through santions and driving the oil price down. So yes it was all to do with Regan Thatcher etc.
Russia was an oppressive regime and the people had enough.
Nothing to do with capitalism in Russia.

Can't be a simple "communism" ideology.

I'm not saying Communism is the kind of gov't I'd want to live under, nor should anyone. But "communism", aka, socialism... that can't be the reason why the Soviets collapsed.

For one, the Soviets survived WWII. WWI ended 1917, Lenin's Red took over the same year or so?
They managed to rebuild, or at least kept the country alive, from WWI and through WWII when the Nazi almost destroyed the entire place.

To come out of those wars... and came from what was an agrarian peasant society under the Czars... then became the sole competitor to the mighty Uncle Sam. In both geopolitics, science and military might... That's not really a failed system.

Maybe the Soviets plebs weren't as rich as the average Americans, not as free... But they weren't Third World level poverty either. Not saying it was paradise, but I think they also have State welfare, free healthcare too.

It was the Chicago Boys that advised Yeltsin to go full neocon.. .privatisation of state enterprises for next to nothing; ending social welfare programmes etc. Those policies did more harm to the Soviets than oil prices shrinking its economy.

 

[luutzu]

I'm wondering where Melania Trump stands in all these revelations - particularly where Donald is jumping his friends wives by setting up the speaker phone scenarios.

I think she could just snap call up Mueller, say she had had enough and wants to turn. Whether she jumps first or we see the inevitable confession/confirmation from one of Don's friends waits to be seen.

I think there should be a (betting) book on this scenario. ..

Melania is just happy to be there. Becoming a First Lady, having her son being the current favourite in line to take up most of Daddy's empire. This is now mor elikely as Trump, being president and is very old, is unlikely to be grabbing any more women... or file for divorce and have the new trophy's kid being the latest favourite to the throne.

That and the lady doesn't seem to care for Trump's womanising. Saves her the trouble of having to do him too often, just enough to keep the inheritance alive but that's it.

 

[wayneL]

You didn't answer my question bas, who, in your view, would be better qualified?

Hillary?
Bernie?
Xi Jinping?

Certainly more duplicitous, but as a result for the country, give me a ####ing break!

 

[moXJO]

Can't be a simple "communism" ideology.

I'm not saying Communism is the kind of gov't I'd want to live under, nor should anyone. But "communism", aka, socialism... that can't be the reason why the Soviets collapsed.

For one, the Soviets survived WWII. WWI ended 1917, Lenin's Red took over the same year or so?
They managed to rebuild, or at least kept the country alive, from WWI and through WWII when the Nazi almost destroyed the entire place.

To come out of those wars... and came from what was an agrarian peasant society under the Czars... then became the sole competitor to the mighty Uncle Sam. In both geopolitics, science and military might... That's not really a failed system.

Maybe the Soviets plebs weren't as rich as the average Americans, not as free... But they weren't Third World level poverty either. Not saying it was paradise, but I think they also have State welfare, free healthcare too.

It was the Chicago Boys that advised Yeltsin to go full neocon.. .privatisation of state enterprises for next to nothing; ending social welfare programmes etc. Those policies did more harm to the Soviets than oil prices shrinking its economy.

Restricted freedom and people getting restless.

 

[basilio]

Donald Trump Didn’t Want to Be President
One year ago: the plan to lose, and the administration’s shocked first days.

By Michael Wolff
Illustrations by Jeffrey Smith
Election Night: It “looked as if he had seen a ghost.”


January 3, 2018 11:53 am

On the afternoon of November 8, 2016, Kellyanne Conway settled into her glass office at Trump Tower. Right up until the last weeks of the race, the campaign headquarters had remained a listless place. All that seemed to distinguish it from a corporate back office were a few posters with right-wing slogans.

Conway, the campaign’s manager, was in a remarkably buoyant mood, considering she was about to experience a resounding, if not cataclysmic, defeat. Donald Trump would lose the election — of this she was sure — but he would quite possibly hold the defeat to under six points. That was a substantial victory. As for the looming defeat itself, she shrugged it off: It was Reince Priebus’s fault, not hers.

She had spent a good part of the day calling friends and allies in the political world and blaming Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Now she briefed some of the television producers and anchors whom she had been carefully courting since joining the Trump campaign — and with whom she had been actively interviewing in the last few weeks, hoping to land a permanent on-air job after the election.

Even though the numbers in a few key states had appeared to be changing to Trump’s advantage, neither Conway nor Trump himself nor his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — the effective head of the campaign — wavered in their certainty: Their unexpected adventure would soon be over. Not only would Trump not be president, almost everyone in the campaign agreed, he should probably not be. Conveniently, the former conviction meant nobody had to deal with the latter issue.

As the campaign came to an end, Trump himself was sanguine. His ultimate goal, after all, had never been to win. “I can be the most famous man in the world,” he had told his aide Sam Nunberg at the outset of the race. His longtime friend Roger Ailes, the former head of Fox News, liked to say that if you want a career in television, first run for president. Now Trump, encouraged by Ailes, was floating rumors about a Trump network. It was a great future. He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunities.

“This is bigger than I ever dreamed of,” he told Ailes a week before the election. “I don’t think about losing, because it isn’t losing. We’ve totally won.”

From the start, the leitmotif for Trump about his own campaign was how crappy it was, and how everybody involved in it was a loser. In August, when he was trailing Hillary Clinton by more than 12 points, he couldn’t conjure even a far-fetched scenario for achieving an electoral victory. He was baffled when the right-wing billionaire Robert Mercer, a Ted Cruz backer whom Trump barely knew, offered him an infusion of $5 million. When Mercer and his daughter Rebekah presented their plan to take over the campaign and install their lieutenants, Steve Bannon and Conway, Trump didn’t resist. He only expressed vast incomprehension about why anyone would want to do that. “This thing,” he told the Mercers, “is so f***ed up.”

Bannon, who became chief executive of Trump’s team in mid-August, called it “the broke-dick campaign.” Almost immediately, he saw that it was hampered by an even deeper structural flaw: The candidate who billed himself as a billionaire — ten times over — refused to invest his own money in it. Bannon told Kushner that, after the first debate in September, they would need another $50 million to cover them until Election Day.


“No way we’ll get 50 million unless we can guarantee him victory,” said a clear-eyed Kushner.

“Twenty-five million?” prodded Bannon.

“If we can say victory is more than likely.”

In the end, the best Trump would do is to loan the campaign $10 million, provided he got it back as soon as they could raise other money. Steve Mnuchin, the campaign’s finance chairman, came to collect the loan with the wire instructions ready to go so Trump couldn’t conveniently forget to send the money.

Most presidential candidates spend their entire careers, if not their lives from adolescence, preparing for the role. They rise up the ladder of elected offices, perfect a public face, and prepare themselves to win and to govern. The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their worldview one whit. Almost everybody on the Trump team, in fact, came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president once he was in office. Michael Flynn, the retired general who served as Trump’s opening act at campaign rallies, had been told by his friends that it had not been a good idea to take $45,000 from the Russians for a speech. “Well, it would only be a problem if we won,” Flynn assured them.

Not only did Trump disregard the potential conflicts of his own business deals and real-estate holdings, he audaciously refused to release his tax returns. Why should he? Once he lost, Trump would be both insanely famous and a martyr to Crooked Hillary. His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared would be international celebrities. Steve Bannon would become the de facto head of the tea-party movement. Kellyanne Conway would be a cable-news star. Melania Trump, who had been assured by her husband that he wouldn’t become president, could return to inconspicuously lunching. Losing would work out for everybody. Losing was winning.

Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears — and not of joy.

There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump. But still to come was the final transformation: Suddenly, Donald Trump became a man who believed that he deserved to be, and was wholly capable of being, the president of the United States.

-_______________________________________

Continue the read... It gets even more interesting. I wonder how the Republicians can hold a majority of support for Trump when this book gets distributed and the fall out from the participants gathers steam.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html

 

[Tisme]

Just wondering how exactly did Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope "brought down Soviet Communism"?

.

They were certainly pivotal. The Catholics gave support to Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland which started the first real rebellion. Thatcher and Reagan recognised the USSR was in financial crisis and changed the policy of status quo to aggressive build up of weaponry in Europe putting the USSR on notice they were going to retaliate rather than defend if the nonsense continued.

The Falkland war was the tactical masterstroke that showed the USSR that Britain was no longer acquiescing. It resulted in the Argentine junta getting the heave ho and the beginning of democratisation of repressive regimes around the world.

Tear down that war Mr Gorbachev

 

[luutzu]

They were certainly pivotal. The Catholics gave support to Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland which started the first real rebellion. Thatcher and Reagan recognised the USSR was in financial crisis and changed the policy of status quo to aggressive build up of weaponry in Europe putting the USSR on notice they were going to retaliate rather than defend if the nonsense continued.

The Falkland war was the tactical masterstroke that showed the USSR that Britain was no longer acquiescing. It resulted in the Argentine junta getting the heave ho and the beginning of democratisation of repressive regimes around the world.

Tear down that war Mr Gorbachev

You might be right, and that's because I don't know any better .... all until Argentina and the beginning of democratisation. That's 'cause I know Kissinger has been pretty busy mucking with South America.

As we all know, lil Henry ain't your typical peacemaker.

He's another example of there being no God. I mean, for the crap he reap on the world, he's living a very, very long time and seemingly loving it.

 

[luutzu]

Restricted freedom and people getting restless.

I don't think people ever rise up because they wanted freedom or free speech and the likes.

I think my politico professor was right that practically all wars, civil wars I think the context was, were all over taxes.

People can put up with oppression, I mean it's not like they have a choice in it. But one thing they can't put up with, not for too long, is starvation. I guess unless the gov't instantly starve them then the plebs can't do much about it (ala China's great famine where Mao's idiotic policies kill about 20 million Chinese; or Stalin's etc.)...

But in general, as long as people have enough food just to survive... be given some hope, and there's plenty of that with posters and slogans and movies... they'll just find other outlets and keep their heads down.

It's not a pleasant environment, but it's better than dying I guess.

So revolution, in China or in other oppressive countries... wouldn't happen until things get real desperate and there are little to no hope to do otherwise but revolt. That or until a foreign liberator nudges a few well placed colonels a bit.

 

[moXJO]

I don't think people ever rise up because they wanted freedom or free speech and the likes.

I think my politico professor was right that practically all wars, civil wars I think the context was, were all over taxes.

People can put up with oppression, I mean it's not like they have a choice in it. But one thing they can't put up with, not for too long, is starvation. I guess unless the gov't instantly starve them then the plebs can't do much about it (ala China's great famine where Mao's idiotic policies kill about 20 million Chinese; or Stalin's etc.)...

But in general, as long as people have enough food just to survive... be given some hope, and there's plenty of that with posters and slogans and movies... they'll just find other outlets and keep their heads down.

It's not a pleasant environment, but it's better than dying I guess.

So revolution, in China or in other oppressive countries... wouldn't happen until things get real desperate and there are little to no hope to do otherwise but revolt. That or until a foreign liberator nudges a few well placed colonels a bit.

They were protesting in Hong Kong over trains being changed and the people feeling like the mainland was impinging on their rights. Once people have a taste they will fight for it.

Russia had a taste- Hollywood, Rockbands and all the other media blasting the Russians on what they were missing out on. Wearing santions on top of overbearing corrupt officials and people had enough.
Russia today and the youth are fighting back. Iran, China even Turkey tried. Give it time because the youth are going to change the guard.

 

[luutzu]

They were protesting in Hong Kong over trains being changed and the people feeling like the mainland was impinging on their rights. Once people have a taste they will fight for it.

Russia had a taste- Hollywood, Rockbands and all the other media blasting the Russians on what they were missing out on. Wearing santions on top of overbearing corrupt officials and people had enough.
Russia today and the youth are fighting back. Iran, China even Turkey tried. Give it time because the youth are going to change the guard.

I saw a doco back around the time HK was to be handed back to China. One HK's wealthier residents, I think she was either a member of parliament or a well to do merchant... when asked what she thought of Governor's house in, Kowloon?, she said it's an eyesore and she wish it be knocked down.

I was a kid who watch the stuff because it have interviews with HK movie stars, but I was shocked to hear it. What the heck does he mean an eyesore? British democracy? The system that make Hong Kong so rich while China is a basket case?

Since then, whenever I travel to Asia.. .well, only a couple of countries in Asia... the people there doesn't care too much for "Western value" or "American democracy". They like the movies, copied the pop music, wouldn't mind the lifestyle they see and read about, but they like their country a whole lot more.

I don't mean that they like the comrades in charge, they hate those bastards as much as we like our politicians. So they put up with how things are and try to put food on the table and stay away from prison, or politicians and the police.

So there are discontent, but not enough that they'll risk their life or freedom for it. Keep up with existing policies and eventually it will... but what sparks it tend to be all the deadwoods having no other choice and the gov't is either facing bankruptcy from official corruption or foreign trade sanctions and can't pay the military proper.

That's when the opportunist sons of low-level merchants whose parents are rich enough to send them to proper schooling but weren't rich enough to buy them a high enough position to suit their ambition.. they will then ride that wave of mass anger and overthrow the old guards.

Youthful idealism... give people a wedding banquet, a kid or two and odd and end jobs... youth and ambition tend to end pretty quickly after that, for most people anyway. I mean, going from wanting to change the world to changing diapers takes about nine months.

----

The thing Communist China has going for it is that if the comrades economic policies fail to impress, or employ, the Chinese enough, they could just start a war or two and it'll unite the people behind them in a heartbeat. That's not to mention the kind of industrial demand and employment needed to serve the war effort... Keynesian economics with firepower right there.

Compare that to the US... It's a bit harder to unite the American people behind another war. Unless it's the kind of enemy that literally tore up Pearl Harbour, or Guam... I just don't see the average American lining up to enlist in the draft.

That's the downside of engaging in endless wars and calling every idiot with a few rocket launchers the greatest threat to national security. People tend to not believe it so much after a dozen or two wars.

Then there's these kind of images:

American kids in water damaged, freezing schools their governor literally said enough money was given so no need for more funding.

If there's a war, it'll be these poor kids or their parents or elder siblings that will go to fight it.
I don't think their heart will be in it.

And since no idiotic general would strike on American soil, the danger aren't really "real" enough to risk dying for rich man's wars.

 

[notting]

I don't mean that they like the comrades in charge, they hate those bastards as much as we like our politicians. So they put up with how things are and try to put food on the table and stay away from prison, or politicians and the police.

Living like that stifles creativity and innovation, which is one of, if not the greatest strength, the US has.
The Chinese don't understand because they believe in force and fear. That is a huge mistake, which is becoming even more prevalent as they put all the Big Brother tech on the streets so you can't even jay walk because the CCP have your walking style coded and know it's you from a distance. So all the people become too scarred to do anything so that destroys productivity, innovation, motivation - the economy.

The thing Communist China has going for it is that if the comrades economic policies fail to impress, or employ, the Chinese enough, they could just start a war or two and it'll unite the people behind them in a heartbeat. That's not to mention the kind of industrial demand and employment needed to serve the war effort... Keynesian economics with firepower right there.

The argument about the American use of drones is far more applicable to this scenario! Further the scenario is almost redundant because starting a war at this stage of the tense game is universally recognized as catastrophic. So that's getting harder for the dictators who universally point to foreign influence as soon as their is any strife with the people. It's dictator play 101.
Look into to your own blindsided bias which is fogging your thinking like a Chomsky fairy tale posing as analysis.

Compare that to the US... It's a bit harder to unite the American people behind another war. Unless it's the kind of enemy that literally tore up Pearl Harbour, or Guam... I just don't see the average American lining up to enlist in the draft.

They no longer have to, it's all about innovation and tech, you know - that which thrives in freedom.
Most of the western recruits no longer even need to leave the shore or ship and they get paid better and are motivated. They have something to fight for.
All the Chinese Communist slaves being dictated to and recruited against their will, most of them, have is their shadow dwelling psychopathic CCP multi billionaire oligarchs that use the people to enrich and protect themselves to the most extreme degree ever accomplished on earth ever!!

If there's a war, it'll be these poor kids or their parents or elder siblings that will go to fight it.
I don't think their heart will be in it.

As above
You really gotta get out of your bubble.

There is a saying in Silicon Valley and it's not from Confucius - 'What ever is band in China is the next big thing!'

 

[luutzu]

Living like that stifles creativity and innovation, which is one of, if not the greatest strength, the US has.
The Chinese don't understand because they believe in force and fear. That is a huge mistake, which is becoming even more prevalent as they put all the Big Brother tech on the streets so you can't even jay walk because the CCP have your walking style coded and know it's you from a distance. So all the people become too scarred to do anything so that destroys productivity, innovation, motivation - the economy.

Just so you know, I don't take any side. I don't apologise for China or care at all for the comrades. I try to be neutral and poke fun at everyone. That's how you make friends

America does have a lot going for it. I mean it controls its entire hemisphere. Skirted by two massive oceans and both north and south of its borders are practically its own backyard and punching bags.

Well, maybe S.America have gotten rid of the yank some 20 years now, but freedom looks to be coming back South with a vengeance lately. Venezuela is about to be thoroughly screwed; Argentina is already in the pocket; Brazil is a few pallets of the mighty dollars from handing over everything to "free trade, American style". Mexico is long gone. But I digress.

America have a lot going its way, but the main thing, as you say, is the innovation and creativity. Property rights, patents, and the welcoming/luring of the world's intellects and capital.

Trump's outright racism kinda turned off a lot of migrants. I mean, he turned them away, and also turn a lot of them off from coming on over.

that and his recent policies, or his party's rather, to tax PhD's scholarship and research funding? WTF? How much tax revenue do you get from taxing PhD students grants?

There's the defunding of public schools; high student debt on ever rising tuition fees. Job insecurity is ever increasing... that's not encouraging a lot of domestic scholarship either.

then there's the corporate takeover of schools and universities. Businessmen and big corporations funding research and programmes that suit their own, often social/political objective, rather than pursuit of science.

That's on the broad, general scale. I'm sure the US does have the world's best R&D in high tech this and that... mostly funded by the Pentagon and other national security agencies.

And here I think is where China can catch up. Not so much by its own funding, but by simply copying it.

The thing about Patent filings is it details everything about the design. That's fine as long as those who infringe it gets sued. Not so fine if a state can just copy it, put more cash into really understanding what it's about and they could leapfrog ahead.

Sure, certain tech and know-how can't easily be copied. But that's where Chinese takeovers or majority ownership of foreign corporations comes in.

The argument about the American use of drones is far more applicable to this scenario! Further the scenario is almost redundant because starting a war at this stage of the tense game is universally recognized as catastrophic. So that's getting harder for the dictators who universally point to foreign influence as soon as their is any strife with the people. It's dictator play 101.
Look into to your own blindsided bias which is fogging your thinking like a Chomsky fairy tale posing as analysis.

Most sane countries and their warlords would only ever drone states that cannot, or will not, fight back. China won't be hitting the US... I'm sure the US won't be the first to strike China either.

I'm no China expert but beside maybe a misstep a couple of years ago when they too openly park an oil rig inside Vietnam's waters and publicly ramped its coast guards, thereby pizzing off a whole lot of Viets... beside that, they seem to have been pretty clever in winning friends and taking their stuff.

They have also been buying Pakistan and Trump just a few days ago refused to raised the bid price for the generals loyalty. So China is already winning that round.

In the South/East China Seas, they practically spent diddly and got themselves some of the world's riches waters. Not to mention further securing their territory and further projecting their military power.

It's going to take the US a lot of CIAs and democratic uprising to try and resolve that situation. If at all.

Would the US risk war with China over it? Unlikely. Not when the US just pushes Russia, China's major competitor and one that surrounds most of China's borders... Why in the world would the US want to upset Russia and drive them into China's arms like that is beyond my little head. But there it is.

So war/confrontation between China and US cannot be military, not directly. It must be strategic and proxied. So far, the US looks to be having a hard time winning this one.

They no longer have to, it's all about innovation and tech, you know - that which thrives in freedom.
Most of the western recruits no longer even need to leave the shore or ship and they get paid better and are motivated. They have something to fight for.
All the Chinese Communist slaves being dictated to and recruited against their will, most of them, have is their shadow dwelling psychopathic CCP multi billionaire oligarchs that use the people to enrich and protect themselves to the most extreme degree ever accomplished on earth ever!!


As above
You really gotta get out of your bubble.

There is a saying in Silicon Valley and it's not from Confucius - 'What ever is band in China is the next big thing!'

The Soviets didn't have much freedom or liberty and they managed to beat the US into space. The Nazis didn't have freedom, morality or much else good going for it but they almost finished their research into rockets, jet engines etc.

I'm sure Chinese drones are nowhere near those of the US/West... and maybe one day most of the US military will be drone-based with little manpower needed. But until then, they're spending about $1trillion a year, most of which are on military personnel the US have to pay very highly to bribe them to stay and join the endless wars.

I think that when it comes to war and the willingness to fight and die for your country. Money don't play too big a deal.

So if, say, the comrades pick a fight with Japan. They'd have an easier time convincing their people to go fight and die over a few rocks the Japanese claim as theirs... easier than the US trying to convince American soldiers of the need to fight and possibly die to... protect Japan?

 

[moXJO]

The only Asians that are super patriotic are the Thais and Japanese.
Chinese don't really give a stuff, business focused. Their govt does though.

Once US gets rid of trump we might see a clearer path. But China set all their strategy in motion years ago. Trump being in power just made it easier. Obama was asleep at the wheel.

 

[luutzu]

The only Asians that are super patriotic are the Thais and Japanese.
Chinese don't really give a stuff, business focused. Their govt does though.

Once US gets rid of trump we might see a clearer path. But China set all their strategy in motion years ago. Trump being in power just made it easier. Obama was asleep at the wheel.

I take it you haven't seen a Bruce Lee movie? Or a Jet Li? Or any given mainland-targeted movie?

Those two didn't became national heroes because of their charisma. They did it by beating Japanese, all of them, single-handedly.

All the comrades need to say is "we going to war with Japan" and the masses will jump to it. Alright, maybe a bit exaggerated there, some will swim to Japan for the chance.

I think it's true that most Chinese, when overseas, don't give a stuff about joining politics. But the comrades at home though... seems the weigh of history and all them Confucian classics and 5 million years of history do give them a sense of history and patriotism money can't buy. Well, maybe they're so well paid and cushioned already that the gwailos need to offer a much bigger envelope to make it interesting.

 

[basilio]

Donald Trump will have a health check on Jan 12th and the the findings will be released to the public. I wonder what will be noted about the 100lbs he has put on in the past 12 months ?

President Donald Trump has scheduled a physical health exam for early next year at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and will share the results with the public, the White House announced on Thursday, a day after Trump's slurred speech sparked concern about his health.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lts-health-concerns-white-house-a8098716.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/mi...his-be-doing-to-his-body/ar-BBGzs8t?li=AA51YE

 

[basilio]

A particularly interesting quote from the net.

From one gorilla to another ??

The tweet claims that Trump loves gorillas so much that the White House staff had to make a TV channel dedicated to the animals fighting each other.




(yes. It's a joke..)