[SeaGypsy]

Since it appears Trump could pull a Mussolini mandate, his economic mandate could change the whole ballgame. Interesting times.

[onlooker]

Since it appears Trump could pull a Mussolini mandate, his economic mandate could change the whole ballgame. Interesting times.

I would not describe Trump as President as interesting, more like a disaster.

[Plantagenet]

the Reverend Wright scandal in the 2008 election.

It THAT what you are so wee-wee'd up about? The what? The Reverend Wright scandal? Thats whats upsetting you?

For heaven's sakes, man--that happened 8 years ago. It was a little tiny two-day scandal thats been forgotten for eight years now.

Gosh you are a weird person.

My advice to you is to just forget about the Rev. Wright scandal. Its totally unimportant, dude----just let it go. Relax. Deep breathing. In-out. In-out. In-out. Ahhhhh. Now hold that breath. Think of your happy place. Hold that breath.......hold it.

Now let it out.

There. Don't you feel better now?

Cheers!

[efarmer]

Tanada, I read your reply to my post and I see your point in how predatory the fractional banking system is in cultural and "big picture" terms. I did use the terms productive and vital, and agree that some better overall system would be a healthier situation for civilization going forward. My point would be to consider the chaos of the system crashing and locking up, and the immediate and wide ranging chaos so created. In this environment a segway to a better scheme based on less predatory principles would in my opinion be lost and chaos would simply rule the vacuum. Like any of our systems including energy, transitioning to a more desirable scheme involves enough stability to manage such a transition and directing the inertia of the present system into a new one with some care and consensus. In the case of the money system collapsing, such stability is very improbable.
Best,
EF

[Hawkcreek]

Tanada, I read your reply to my post and I see your point in how predatory the fractional banking system is in cultural and "big picture" terms. I did use the terms productive and vital, and agree that some better overall system would be a healthier situation for civilization going forward. My point would be to consider the chaos of the system crashing and locking up, and the immediate and wide ranging chaos so created. In this environment a segway to a better scheme based on less predatory principles would in my opinion be lost and chaos would simply rule the vacuum. Like any of our systems including energy, transitioning to a more desirable scheme involves enough stability to manage such a transition and directing the inertia of the present system into a new one with some care and consensus. In the case of the money system collapsing, such stability is very improbable.
Best,
EF

I agree with almost all of what you say. But a look at history shows that the number of occasions in which an unjust system this firmly entrenched is changed without violence, is far fewer than the opposite. The elite would literally rather lose their heads than give back any of their wealth.
I expect lots of violence, beginning within a year or two.
The world has always been about change, and our responses to it. Just part of the experience.

[Subjectivist]

Tanada, I read your reply to my post and I see your point in how predatory the fractional banking system is in cultural and "big picture" terms. I did use the terms productive and vital, and agree that some better overall system would be a healthier situation for civilization going forward. My point would be to consider the chaos of the system crashing and locking up, and the immediate and wide ranging chaos so created. In this environment a segway to a better scheme based on less predatory principles would in my opinion be lost and chaos would simply rule the vacuum. Like any of our systems including energy, transitioning to a more desirable scheme involves enough stability to manage such a transition and directing the inertia of the present system into a new one with some care and consensus. In the case of the money system collapsing, such stability is very improbable.
Best,
EF

I agree with almost all of what you say. But a look at history shows that the number of occasions in which an unjust system this firmly entrenched is changed without violence, is far fewer than the opposite. The elite would literally rather lose their heads than give back any of their wealth.
I expect lots of violence, beginning within a year or two.
The world has always been about change, and our responses to it. Just part of the experience.

Most people, elite or not, have a mental image that they are in control of their life, their future or what not. The thing is, all of that control is at least 80 percent illusion in the heads of the person involved. Sure if you are rich enough you can get away with virtual, maybe even real, slavery. You can, with a plan and a cash payment, arrange for some minor annoyance to be removed, beaten or killed. However when it comes to things like consequences from actions that have built up for years or even decades? You might escape, but you can not control the crumbling of the house of cards once the winds of change blow too strongly.

[Plantagenet]

Bush started better wars.

Bush might be ahead on quality, but Obama is winning on quantity. AND there's still time for Obama to start another war or two.

Even Obama admits his war on Libya was catastrophic, Obama's war against the Caliphate in Syria isn't over yet, and what Obama calls the "good war" in Afghanistan is heating up again.


cheers!

[Lore]

Bush started better wars.

Bush might be ahead on quality, but Obama is winning on quantity. AND there's still time for Obama to start another war or two.

Even Obama admits his war on Libya was catastrophic, Obama's war against the Caliphate in Syria isn't over yet, and what Obama calls the "good war" in Afghanistan is heating up again.


cheers!

If he is second, it's a pretty poor second just from comparing casualties alone. Interventions don't make very good wars and as far as Afghanistan, didn't Bush start that one?

[Plantagenet]

Interventions don't make very good wars

No war is a good war.

and as far as Afghanistan, didn't Bush start that one?

In the US war is declared by the Congress, not the President. Its unconstitutional for a president to start a war without Congressional approval. Bush went to the US Congress after the 9/11 attacks to ask them to vote for the Afghanistan War. Obama was not in the Senate in 2001, but he supported the US entering the Afghanistan War. Once in the Senate Obama voted to support the US war in Afghanistan many times. Just as Hillary shares the responsibility for the Iraq War because of her vote to go to war, Obama shares responsibility for the Afghanistan War because of his statements in favor of the war and his numerous votes for the Afghanistan War.

AND, Once he became President in 2009 Obama bears personal responsibility for his decision to surge tens of thousands of US troops into Afghanistan, resulting in heavy US casualties.

[Lore]

It was Bush that started the wars. That was the question. Not who supported him in them, or who they got turned over to.

[onlooker]

It was Bush that started the wars. That was the question. Not who supported him in them, or who they got turned over to.

Yep, the Neocons started the conflagration in the Middle East. Nothing henceforth has equaled that.

[ennui2]

It was Bush that started the wars. That was the question. Not who supported him in them, or who they got turned over to.

Don't feed the troll. Planty's purpose is merely to harangue Obama. There is no consistent policy position to Planty's complaints, especially when you consider Planty's past political endorsements, such as McCain "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" in 2008.

[ennui2]

It THAT what you are so wee-wee'd up about? The what? The Reverend Wright scandal? Thats whats upsetting you?

For heaven's sakes, man--that happened 8 years ago. It was a little tiny two-day scandal thats been forgotten for eight years now.

Gosh you are a weird person.

Exhibit A above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[jedrider]

"In the US war is declared by the Congress, not the President."

Difference between 'de jure' and 'de facto'.

[AdamB]

It was Bush that started the wars. That was the question. Not who supported him in them, or who they got turned over to.

Yep, the Neocons started the conflagration in the Middle East. Nothing henceforth has equaled that.

Your kidding, right?

I don't even think neocons had been invented yet, to blame everything on, when conflagration started in the ME.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... proclaimed

[Plantagenet]

"In the US war is declared by the Congress, not the President."

Difference between 'de jure' and 'de facto'.

No, actually its the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional, i.e. legal and illegal.

Under the U.S. Constitution the power to declare war is given to the Congress. Thats why Roosevelt, for instance, went to Congress the day after the Pearl Harbor attacks by Japan and asked the Congress to declare war against Japan. Similarly Bush went to Congress after the 9/11 attacks and got Congressional approval to wage war against Iraq, and then later got a separate vote from Congress authorizing the war in Iraq (FYI thats the infamous vote where Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq).

After the VietNam war disaster the Congress in 1973 passed a resolution to assert Congressional power over war-making and to set limits on what a President like Lyndon Johnson can do on his own to take the US to war. The Congress thought it was important to limit presidential power to unilaterally take the US into a war after the VietNam war ended with 500,000 US combat casualties. Under the 1973 "War Powers Act" the president is empowered to respond instantly to threats to US national security, but even in those cases the War Powers act requires the president to go to Congress for approval after 48 hours, and forbids US forces to engage in military action more than 30 days without Congressional voting to declare war or voting to authorize the war under the war powers act.

Under the constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, President Obama's wars in Libya and Syria are clearly illegal and unconstitutional. Obama has never gone to congress for authorization for either war and Congress has never voted to authorize either war. Of course Obama is a D, so no one seems to care if he wages illegal wars. Back when President Lyndon Johnson (D) took the US into Viet Nam the Ds were some of his harshest critics---but these days the Ds just passively roll over when Obama unilaterally takes the US to war. Basically Obama has thrown the Constitution and the War Powers Act into the trash, and shown that, much as happened in Viet Nam, the President in the 21st century can ignore the constitution and take the US into war whenever he wants, with no Congressional vote needed.


Cheers!



War Powers Act

[onlooker]

Other than the ongoing feud between Israel and Palenstine, wholesale invasions and destruction of countries and all out civil war and terrorists multiplying in number it seems daily was not happening till after 911 and Bush was in power. So yes they're was some violence and some terrorism already but all hell broke loose with the invasion of Iraq after 911.

[Plantagenet]

wholesale invasions and destruction of countries and all out civil war and terrorists multiplying in number it seems daily was not happening till after 911

Actually, all these things were happening prior to 9/11, then they happened during and just after 9/11, and these things are all continuing today, and will likely there will be more of them in the future.

For instance Al Qaida was nothing new. Yes they attacked the US on 9/11 but they had previously waged a multi year against the USSR after the USSR invaded Afghanistan and then killed US military personal in two attacks at the Khobar Towers and on the USS Cole during the Clinton administration. Clinton failed to respond effectively, so Al Qaida struck again on 9/11. And Islamist terroist attacks on the World Trade Center were nothing new----the WTC was attacked a few years earlier by Islamic terrorists during the Clinton administration and almost was knocked over then. And the US going war against Saddam Hussein was nothing new--- the US had previously waged a war against Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait under George H. W. Bush.. And civil war in Syria is nothing new---Syria had a huge civil war with the Sunni population rebelling against the Assad regime a few decades ago, when the current Assad's dad was in power there and it ended much like this one is ending---with the defeat and slaughter of the Sunni rebels. And the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels are horrible, but there have been several prior cycles of islamist terrorist attacks on Paris, Madrid, London etc. in the past---this is just the latest version of that.

I wish things were great in the past and then George Bush caused the world to go crazy, but really the world had already been crazy all on its own for a very long time. Everything that we are seeing now is just more of the same old things---the wars and terrorist attacks and civil wars we see now happened before in mostly the exact same countries in the past.

[Lore]

Yeah, George just managed to stir the pot a lot more.

[Plantagenet]

Yeah, George just managed to stir the pot a lot more.

Yup. And Obama's the one stirring the pot now, and Hillary will be the one stirring the pot starting in 2017.

I'd like to think that Hillary will change course and the end all the wars, but she's made it clear she's going to continue Obama's policies, so presumably that means continuing the wars in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe going back into Libya if the Caliphate continues to gain ground there.

Cheers!


Soon Hillary will be commander in chief. She has pledged to keep Obama's wars going.