- Joined
- 15 November 2006
- Posts
- 1,206
- Reactions
- 679
Most Presidents bring literacy and a bit of relevant experience to the table, at least.
Which is how Australians have traditionally viewed the US and it's Presidents.
Most Presidents bring literacy and a bit of relevant experience to the table, at least.
I wonder i that is true. Be interesting to see which ones were career politicians
Washington, Teddy R , Reagan etc
Gubernatorial experience might count?
Waging wars, clearing the land of read and brown people... those are relevant experiences. Washington and Teddy have them in spades.
Reagan has a different, but still relevant, experience: good salesmanship and enough acting chop to look and sound presidential.
Trump's only experience with getting rid of colored folks was kicking them out of daddy's apartments. His acting is bad, very bad. His script reading and improvisation - terrible.
He speaks to his audience.
True he's not a calibrated man and harsh with his words, but he's up against two empire building nations that took advantage of a luck lustre leader who concentrated on domestic social injustices rather than being actively forceful on the world stage to protect the American Empire.
Whether the USA is an attractive option when comparing the alternatives of Russian, Chinese and Islamic governance is for each individual, but he has an obligation to his nation to help it survive in prosperity. Breaking some eggs and insulting stagnation may well be the resuscitation the people need to feel productive in matters other than putting comfort blankets around gays, coloureds, feminists, etc.
.
Credit where it's due, Obama was a much more aggressive yet far-sighted global strategist than Trump. And despite what we're told, Obama further gutted the working class (aka the middle class) than we're to believed. The average yank lived and experienced it, that's why Obama's successor didn't make it to the WH.
As to foreign policy, Obama's Team America got a few things right. Trump kinda screwed all that up and the future will either see Chinese hegemony or WWIII.
First, Obama made peace with Iran. Letting its oil flows out for more Western goods to flow in. That takes away its incentives to sell and deal with only China and Russia, particularly China and its appetite for oil.
That also kept one part of the Middle East on friendlier terms. Which is good and allow you room to liberate the other 7 countries in the region.
At what stage will many countries, allies, neutrals whatever, decide the US under Donald Trump is not a State they want count on economically or politically ? Which other countries could end up with greater regional or world power ?
The target is China.?
At what stage will many countries, allies, neutrals whatever, decide the US under Donald Trump is not a State they want count on economically or politically ? Which other countries could end up with greater regional or world power ?
Obama was asleep at the wheel. Russia waltzing into the Ukraine. China setting up shop in the south china sea. Losing important asian allies. Misreading the arab spring. You could go on and on. Putin despised Obama and thought he was weak. And Obama was.
Thats how we ended up in the position we are in now. One thing Trump isn't viewed as and thats being soft.
More like a spastic monkey with the runs. He ain't afraid to throw sht anywhere.
We will see what happens with North Korea negotiations.
Yeah a Keating for us, or at least someone with his balls .Indeed so. Australia needs another Keating, the US needs another FDR.
Speak softly, but carry a big stick. (OK, that was Theodore Roosevelt but the idea is right.)
There was talk under Obama that the US could no longer protect many of its allies. America is not what it once was. It also cannot afford to be ripped off by other countries through trade.
China recently put wine tariffs on Australia to teach us a lesson. Wheres the outrage?
Took troops off the ground (after advice not too) and droned the sht out of everyone. Then isis appeared on his watch after leaving the gap.That's not true.
Obama took two wars in the Middle East, won the Nobel Peace Prize, then quickly extend two into eight.
The expand the experimental, only taking out Al Qaeda and major terrorists drone assassination program... add extra juice and a weekly kill-list to it. Expand its operations all over the Middle East and Africa.
That's not weak. It's something else quite illegal. Though Trump is more aggressive on that front in that he permit the droning of anyone the CIA and other warriors want. Just do it. No need to get his signature. That and since Obama took down most of the guys at the top, Trump permit the taking of pretty much anyone who look like they're in a terrorist group (and all their surroundings).
With the Ukraine... the Russians were already waltzing in it. It's their dance floor.
Obama's CIA got the coup going, extending NATO influence into the Ukraine. Kicked out Russia's man. That's why Russia took Crimea and push their troops in. I think WWI and WWII kinda taught the Russians to not let a potential enemy parked their tanks right at the gates. And the Ukraine is on Russia's border.
The US was supposed to be leaving the European alone. Getting them to fund more of NATO. I guess one way of doing that was to upset the Russian a bit with the Ukraine move... you know, get the Europeans on edge a bit. But seems a couple more fronts have been opened up and all the might of Europe can't risk a Russian onslaught, if, when, it comes so Uncle Sam is sticking around a bit.
So the guys in Moscow are scratching their heads. Why in the heck does the US want to push us and our oil export to China? Why are they pushing their tanks right up to our gates when leaving a couple buffer state and they'll have a friend in us.
The comrades in Beijing are laughing their heads off. I mean, all the major powers in the world - the US - are busying themselves in Europe and the Middle East, the northern half of Africa... leaving the only other major power with global ambition free to pick off puny little ASEANs and southern Africa.
Why is everyone complaining then? US is a gluten for goods, the rest of the world knows it.Rage burn brightest when it burn within
How are other countries ripping the US off? I'd love to be ripped off the way the US is having it.
Just send me your goods and I'll write you IOUs. Then when I have too many IOUs outstanding I'd print more greenbacks and those get halved in a real hurry. Then I write more IOUs for more real goods.
Well, eventually people will stop ripping me off that way but so far, so good.
Took troops off the ground (after advice not too) and droned the sht out of everyone. Then isis appeared on his watch after leaving the gap.
Obama was weak. Told the people one thing, while he ran black ops in the background. And it all went south.
Why is everyone complaining then? US is a gluten for goods, the rest of the world knows it.
I'm not for tariffs, but guaranteed a lot of these countries will roll over to Trumps demands after a bit of pain. I can't see many other reasons why he would do it.
China is, and has been stealing US tech for years. If I start a company in China then the government gets to grab any tech. They also hacked the majority of US tech through the PLA and were busted.
Get ready for payback if the don't start easing back.
He was weak.Troops "withdrawal" serve a few purpose.
One, it give the press and the plebs the impression that he's a man of his word - when he says he'll end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, he meant to move the troops to Asia readying for another few more.
Two, you don't need that many troops there if your new game plan is to simply secure the real reason you're there in the first place. No, not freedom. Oil.
So they set up green zones, have trained locals (the good ones) working under supervision to guard those valuable assets. Outside of those perimeters it's every Arab for themselves.
So it was a "good" move. Who would have thought the locals would get really mad when you put them among terrorists and drone them all now and then?
Obama is not weak. But he is cowardly.
He had his FDR moment. He had the background experience, firsthand experience of poverty and everyday struggles most American goes through. He had a perfect set of circumstances - the GFC - to reign in corrupt corporate and banking practices.
His administration literally own, socialised, most of all the major US banks, mortgage lenders, GMs etc.
He had the American people behind him; his admin owns those corrupt banks; he had their CEOs by the nutsack. He could forced change, reduce their size and influence, put into law safe guards for workers.
Instead, he use taxpayers money to save the bankers and literally let some 10 million families go homeless. WTF.
Anyway, he screwed the plebs so hard they either turned off voting or reluctantly vote against Trump... or voted for an idiot like Trump because there's hope that he won't be another smooth talking prick.
No one wants a trade war. It looks like US is just showing its "swinging dick" status. I'm hoping its just negotiation tactics. Ask Kim how much ass he has to kiss to keep the meeting with trump on track.I'm no economist, obviously, but if every country put on tariffs... doesn't that just mean things get more expensive somewhat equally BUT... but with only one group of people paying the price? Consumers?
I mean, it's like a perfect crime. Trump get to look good for the coming election - job, good jobs, protector; tremendous deal maker etc. because he raise taxes to "protect American jobs".
Then the other guys either ask for exemptions on favoured corporations, or/and they also raise taxes too.
If the company is big enough, they'll just pass on the tax increase, plus some. Those smaller operations will get swallowed up... the end consumers will either go without or cough up more money...
So corporations get to make the same, or more, money. Politicians gets to look strong and protective. The plebs get to pay a higher price. Bloody hell, that's quite brilliant.
I mean, trade wars and protective tariffs are only effective (at protecting jobs, nurse local industries) if the other side can't fight back by doing the same thing. When both sides could fight equally... the only winners are the arms dealers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?