Donald Trump

[Karl]

Maybe I should be clearer on my view on racism: It's one thing to have a view on a particular group, it is however a completely different thing to try and suggest that every single member of that group behaves in this same way.

Not really - the latter is simply an extension of the former. If you have a certain view about a specific group, that view is going to colour how you view every single individual from that group whom you encounter. You are immediately going to recognise that he or she is "one of them", and you are going to treat them differently whether you mean to or not. Or put differently: if you have a bias against group X, any member of group X is going to have to work harder to win your favour or your trust than people who are not members of this group.

[Harry D]

[Karl]

First I laughed. Then I cried.

[Pcdunn]

I just watched a video of Trump claiming Iranians filmed "Obama’s money going to Iran" and sent us the footage to embarrass us. The people in his audience were nodding and looking like they believed every word.

Turns out the footage was from the prisoner swap, filmed in Switzerland and not in Iran. What a maroon!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/04/questions-abound-as-trump-claims-to-have-watched-video-leaked-by-iran-of-the-money-transfer/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na

So he is confused about what he's seen, and telling people the wrong things. Sigh....

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's something else entirely. I am talking about the defensive obligations of the alliance, ie. what should the response be if someone else declares war on us. For the mightiest nation of the alliance - the mightiest by far - to say it may not intervene, is tantamount to telling our potential enemies: "Go ahead. We won't stop you, you don't need to worry about that." It is much like Germany's carte blanche to Austria-Hungary, just in reverse.

Well, as someone who thinks war is detrimental and thinks international gangs are built upon fear, which is cumulative and spirals out of control, I don't want England to be part of 'us'. Perhaps The Don sees it in the same vein.

As you mention Germany and Austria-Hungry, the problem actually arose because nations had formed into gangs, with binding alliances that were eventually irreversible. What really should have been a small problem in the Balkans turned into a full scale, protracted European war - because nations had formed into gangs.

And, it is the biggest mistake that England has ever made: centuries of innovation, commerce and industry down the drain within four short years.

It's a bit like you living next door to a neighbour one side and a neighbour on the other side who get their heads together and say we need to join forces to keep you in your place, and so you join forces with someone else until the inevitable happens. You're setting yourselves up for conflict.

It would be a far better world in the event people and nations would just leave things alone.

What affects Europe affects America, directly so. USA is not served by a destabilised Europe. And we are not talking about "problems" between Russia and whatever nation. We are talking about declaration of war, and the general fear of declarations of war. Trump would reduce that fear for Putin considerably.

Really? 'You sure? I doubt anyone in the United States gives the first shite about what I'm doing here in the North East of England. In the event you mean gangs forming and the inevitable wars that are borne out of that, then yeah they may care, but the obvious and historically evidential solution is to not form gangs - such as NATO.

No, that is not what he is saying at all. What he said was that he might not lift a finger if Russia bloody invaded.

So who's going to tell her to go to war? The last time it was Bush who instigated the whole thing, it's not like he was told by anyone to invade Iraq.

So what. Is the United States the Mother of your country? And, do you feel you are about to be attacked?

not[/i] be offended by someone saying they don't want YOUR values in the country? Because whether Mexicans are entering legally or illegaly, they are still going to have the same cultural background. You can't say, "we don't want illegal Mexicans here, because their values are different" and then at the same time be OK with whatever number of legal Mexicans, because there is absolutely no reason to assume their values are any different. As a Mexican-American, whose parents may well have been illegal, you are naturally going to take offense. And with damned good reason.

Except Mexicans attempting to illegally enter the United States aren't 'your average Mexican-American', and so it's a pointless line of discussion.

There is no reason to assume Mexican values are different to American values?! 'Heard it all now.

[ChrisGeorge]

"Unfiltered Voices From Donald Trump's Crowds" -

New York Times reporters have covered Donald J. Trump's rallies for more than a year. His supporters at these events often express their views in angry and provocative ways. Here are some examples in a NYT video: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/poli...ps-crowds.html

And about the present state of the campaign an article from National Public Rado: "Donald Trump might be in real trouble this time" by Ron Elving, who writes in part:

Let's take a step back from the news of the past few days and ask a fundamental question: Why does everything suddenly seem different?

Donald Trump, the unsinkable candidate who seemed immune to political consequences while winning Republican presidential primaries month after month, now finds himself with an ailing campaign and a bad case of personal toxicity. . . .

In the primary months, the usual laws of gravity did not seem to apply to Trump. The businessman and 70-year-old first-time candidate could say nearly anything about anyone. He could defy the norms of political discourse. Whatever damage he suffered was lost amid his mounting vote totals. In the end, he amassed nearly half the Republican vote -- easily a plurality in a huge field of candidates.

He generated controversy wherever he went, yet seemed to thrive on it. Until now. Now suddenly the freewheeling Trump personality that had been a wellspring of success has become a gusher of miscues and offenses. It is as though someone somewhere suddenly found a switch and changed the polarity on the Trump phenomenon from positive to negative overnight. . . .

[Mayerling]

"Unfiltered Voices From Donald Trump's Crowds" -

New York Times reporters have covered Donald J. Trump's rallies for more than a year. His supporters at these events often express their views in angry and provocative ways. Here are some examples in a NYT video: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/poli...ps-crowds.html

And about the present state of the campaign an article from National Public Rado: "Donald Trump might be in real trouble this time" by Ron Elving, who writes in part:

Let's take a step back from the news of the past few days and ask a fundamental question: Why does everything suddenly seem different?

Donald Trump, the unsinkable candidate who seemed immune to political consequences while winning Republican presidential primaries month after month, now finds himself with an ailing campaign and a bad case of personal toxicity. . . .

In the primary months, the usual laws of gravity did not seem to apply to Trump. The businessman and 70-year-old first-time candidate could say nearly anything about anyone. He could defy the norms of political discourse. Whatever damage he suffered was lost amid his mounting vote totals. In the end, he amassed nearly half the Republican vote -- easily a plurality in a huge field of candidates.

He generated controversy wherever he went, yet seemed to thrive on it. Until now. Now suddenly the freewheeling Trump personality that had been a wellspring of success has become a gusher of miscues and offenses. It is as though someone somewhere suddenly found a switch and changed the polarity on the Trump phenomenon from positive to negative overnight. . . .

Thanks Chris for the cites of the videos and the article. Nothing I did not expect in either, but I hadn't heard the video nor read the article.

Jeff

[Karl]

Well, as someone who thinks war is detrimental and thinks international gangs are built upon fear, which is cumulative and spirals out of control, I don't want England to be part of 'us'. Perhaps The Don sees it in the same vein.

As you mention Germany and Austria-Hungry, the problem actually arose because nations had formed into gangs, with binding alliances that were eventually irreversible. What really should have been a small problem in the Balkans turned into a full scale, protracted European war - because nations had formed into gangs.

The problem with WWI wasn't just that alliances were forming - it was also that alliances broke down. It also had to do with the purposes of the alliances. This is a huge topic, but I'll try to be brief. The initial alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary was meant as a protective pact in the event of Russian attack from the East - this was part of Bismarck's scheme to isolate France to the West. Later, however, the "Three Emperors' Treaty" between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia meant that each assured each other of "benevolent neutrality" should any of them be attacked by another nation - which developed into Russia specifically giving her assurance that she would not interfere should Germany be attacked by France. In return, Germany swore to stay neutral in case Austria-Hungary attacked Russia. These agreements lasted until Bismarck resigned in 1890, and new alliances were formed. This time, France and Russia agreed to come to each other's aid in the event of an attack from the initial dual-alliance, and there was also the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France.

All of these making and breaking of alliances served to build up both diplomatic tensions an nationalistic sentiment, and the Balkan conflict merely served as a catalyst for what might truly have been inevitable regardless. By 1914, the various nations were positively eager for some sort of armed conflict, to put the others in their place. Which is why Austria-Hungary gave Serbia an ultimatum they could not possibly accept, and which is why Germany gave her assurances that she would stand by Austria-Hungary should they decide to attack. They were hoping the other nations would not interfere, and though that was not a very realistic hope, I wonder if they would have been so quick to declare war had the Triple-Entente made it clear that they would intervene should the Central Powers attack Serbia.

And, it is the biggest mistake that England has ever made: centuries of innovation, commerce and industry down the drain within four short years.

Innovation never suffers in war. Quite the opposite, it blossoms. Economically, yes, Britain suffered greatly from both world wars. But it is very difficult to say what would have happened had Britain stayed neutral during WWI.

It's a bit like you living next door to a neighbour one side and a neighbour on the other side who get their heads together and say we need to join forces to keep you in your place, and so you join forces with someone else until the inevitable happens. You're setting yourselves up for conflict.

And what happens when you side with a neighbour, who then openly says that whatever beef the other neighbour has with you, is nothing to do with him?

It would be a far better world in the event people and nations would just leave things alone.

"Why can't we all just be friends?" It's a nice notion, but won't work for the same reason communism can never work: human nature.

Really? 'You sure? I doubt anyone in the United States gives the first shite about what I'm doing here in the North East of England. In the event you mean gangs forming and the inevitable wars that are borne out of that, then yeah they may care, but the obvious and historically evidential solution is to not form gangs - such as NATO.

Those are not the things I was referring to at all. I am sorry, but I was not prepared to give a lecture on international trade, so you'll excuse me if I am a bit lost for words. Suffice it to say that there was a reason for the Marshall Plan. It was to build up the economy of Europe, and it cost the US billions of dollars - or properly, the US invested billions of dollars, to rebuild Europe's economy. A big reason for this, in turn, was to prevent the spread of communism. But why would they be concerned with that? Militarily, a communist block consisting of the Soviet Union, China and Europe would place the US in a tight spot. So it is much better to make allies out of Europe. And for them to be useful allies, they need to be strong allies.

But aside from the military alliance aspects, there is also this:

1. It is good to have lots of resources. (Though it is not so good to have all the resources, because monopoly causes stagnation.)
2. If you don't have all the resources, it is good to be friends with others who have resources you want.
3. It is good for that friend to be of sufficient means to extract or produce those resources in desirable quantities.
4. Trade is good for the economy. Security is important for trade links.

I'm sorry, I am finding it very difficult to explain the basic principles of trade without being condescending.

So what. Is the United States the Mother of your country? And, do you feel you are about to be attacked?

Not me, no - even though my country has a land border with Russia. No, it's the Baltic region and the Crimea which are the hot spots. It's not that I want the US to be the world police, but it's like a maximum security prison in the US: when you find yourself as an inmate there, you want to be part of a gang for the sake of your own security. Standing alone, you will find yourself in trouble with one of the gangs sooner or later, because no one has your back.

Except Mexicans attempting to illegally enter the United States aren't 'your average Mexican-American', and so it's a pointless line of discussion.

You don't think Mexican-Americans feel any kinship at all with illegal Mexicans? Like I said, many legal Mexican-Americans have illegal parents. I refuse to believe, even for a second, that you actually believe your own words if you are seriously suggesting Mexican-Americans will make the same distinction you do. They know that the main distinction between an illegal and legal Mexican-American, is their legal status.

Consider this: I, with no links to Mexico whatsoever, think Trump's statements are insulting to Mexican-Americans. How much more so would not actual Mexican-Americans make of Trump's statements?

There is no reason to assume Mexican values are different to American values?! 'Heard it all now.

Give us a reason, then. I actually want to hear this.

Your mock incredulity is particularly odd, by the way, considering the restrictions Trump is suggesting on Muslims, as if they all have the same values.

[Semper_Eadem]

Trump was just a flash in pants! However from where I live in rural Missouri, there are still a lot of supporters for Trump out there. Trump like Nixon has his silent supporters, I just really hope it is not a Silent Majority. =-<

[Svensson]

As you mention Germany and Austria-Hungry, the problem actually arose because nations had formed into gangs, with binding alliances that were eventually irreversible. What really should have been a small problem in the Balkans turned into a full scale, protracted European war - because nations had formed into gangs.

and there was peace before the nations had formed into gangs? Not really. Immediately before WW1, it was customary to "divide and conquer". For example, German unification in 1871 was preceded by three individual wars against Austria, Denmark and France. Likewise, Pain managed to conquer Central and South America with really just a few thousand men (cumulatively) and the kingdoms of India were similarly conquered by the English and the French. So to make alliances was the logical result in the early 20th century, at a time when the effect of the industrial age on warfare was not yet known (in August 1914, most people assumed that the war would be a dust-up that might last a few months but no more).

In WW2, it was the alliances that prevented Hitler from reaching his goal. The co-operation between France, England, Russia (and later, the US) was pretty unprecedented until then. And I firmly believe that Nato's and the Warsaw Pact's very existence has kept the world in balance and therefore prevented mutual destruction. All other parts of the world where there have been no alliances have seen crippling wars over the last 50 years, namely Africa, Asia and the Middle-East.

[Svensson]

Trump was just a flash in pants! However from where I live in rural Missouri, there are still a lot of supporters for Trump out there. Trump like Nixon has his silent supporters, I just really hope it is not a Silent Majority. =-<

Thing is, if Clinton wins now, who will run for the Republicans in 2020? Rush Limbaugh? Newt Gingrich? Bill O'Reilly? Alex Jones? Part of me is actually interested in seeing what effect a Trump presidency has on the US. It could be that this is the shock-therapy that the Republicans need. So how about this for a best-possible outcome:

- Trump gets elected.
- Democrats in turmoil and re-assess themselves to see what they SHOULD be doing in a post-Clinton and post-Wassermann era.
- Trump turns out to be a buffoon, probably gets caught with a bag of Coke and a bunch of Hookers in Trump-tower and has to resign.
- Pence becomes president and altough people might not find him popular, he does at least seem to be a rationally behaving person.
- both main-parties actually provide SANE and DECENT candidates for 2020.



Okay, here's a drink (or five) to that!

[Karl]

Thing is, if Clinton wins now, who will run for the Republicans in 2020? Rush Limbaugh? Newt Gingrich? Bill O'Reilly? Alex Jones? Part of me is actually interested in seeing what effect a Trump presidency has on the US. It could be that this is the shock-therapy that the Republicans need. So how about this for a best-possible outcome:

- Trump gets elected.
- Democrats in turmoil and re-assess themselves to see what they SHOULD be doing in a post-Clinton and post-Wassermann era.
- Trump turns out to be a buffoon, probably gets caught with a bag of Coke and a bunch of Hookers in Trump-tower and has to resign.
- Pence becomes president and altough people might not find him popular, he does at least seem to be a rationally behaving person.
- both main-parties actually provide SANE and DECENT candidates for 2020.



Okay, here's a drink (or five) to that!

Bill O'Reilly or Alex Jones as presidential candidates? That could NEVER happen.
...could never happen...
...could never happen...
...could never happen...

[Fleetwood Mac]

The problem with WWI wasn't just that alliances were forming - it was also that alliances broke down. It also had to do with the purposes of the alliances. This is a huge topic, but I'll try to be brief. The initial alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary was meant as a protective pact in the event of Russian attack from the East - this was part of Bismarck's scheme to isolate France to the West. Later, however, the "Three Emperors' Treaty" between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia meant that each assured each other of "benevolent neutrality" should any of them be attacked by another nation - which developed into Russia specifically giving her assurance that she would not interfere should Germany be attacked by France. In return, Germany swore to stay neutral in case Austria-Hungary attacked Russia. These agreements lasted until Bismarck resigned in 1890, and new alliances were formed. This time, France and Russia agreed to come to each other's aid in the event of an attack from the initial dual-alliance, and there was also the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France.

Most of which isn't an accurate reflection of the politics of the time, nor does it explain why WW1 came about.

There were various factions within Germany that agitated for a war, as opposed to your notion that they were fearful of a Russian attack. Germany felt like she could never accomplish her dreams under the current state of affairs, and with both France and Russia investing more money in their armed forces; the Germans felt it was now or never. It was calculated that in two years after 1916 the tables would be tipped too firmly against Germany.

Actually, the Germans felt both Russia and France were weak in 1914, and they would be much stronger by 1916, and so they agitated for war not out of fear of being attacked; but rather out of a calculated gamble to strike now.

The Entente Cordiale did not commit England to a war with anyone, involving anyone. Right up until the eve of war the French were told not to expect our assistance and the Germans were told not to expect us to stay out of it - in an attempt at preventing them going to war.

It wasn't any alliance with France that brought us into the war, the most crucial underlying reason was that it was felt that we could not risk Germany defeating France and taking control of Northern French ports and so undermining our trade routes. That was the be all and end all for our leaders.

Regardless, France and Russia were locked in through finance. Germany and Austria-Hungary were also locked in. And this is what turned a small event into protracted European war. Gangs at an international level.

[Wickerman]

... Part of me is actually interested in seeing what effect a Trump presidency has on the US. It could be that this is the shock-therapy that the Republicans need.

Part of me is considering a similar turn of events. I'm also interested in seeing what a calamity he would be if he made it to the White house, I'm sure that will never happen though.

Now we see Trump reading from a script, no doubt provided to him by his advisers. So are we to believe he intends to only say what he is told to say for the next three months?
I can't see him doing that, but hypothetically, just supposing he did, and he made it to the White House, what then?
Are we to believe Trump is going to ask his advisers what to say and do for the next four years?

Not a chance... more likely we will see him revert back to his previous ways, the real Donald Trump - ignorant, abusive, arrogant, juvenile, self-centered and two-faced.

Fareed Zakaria of CNN encapsulated Trump in a nutshell, both literally and figuratively.
Donald Trump, the bull-$hit artist.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/08/05/exp-gps-0807-take-trump-bs.cnn

[Pcdunn]

Nice video!

I think Mr. Trump went too far when he attacked the honored dead of the U.S. Military. That "sacred cow" remains sacred, particularly among the people he is trying to get votes from.
He has now lost percentage points in several key "battleground" states, and no longer leads Ms. Clinton (or ties her) across the board.
I don't think we can relax yet, though. It has been such an unpredictable election year that assuming the worst is over is likely to be a mistake.