President Trump's 2020 State of the Union Address

[onawah]

I don't think we can really have normal, rational discussions about these kinds of matters very constructively any longer because everything is out of context now, unless you take into consideration the goals and perspectives of the Anglo Saxon Mission, the NWO, Agenda 2030, etc. etc., all of which were designed to eliminate the very framework of civilization as we know it.
Political parties, religions, familial, ethnic and national identities, even gender identity; private ownership, the right to privacy, in fact, every human freedom and right that has been fought for for so long and at such great cost over the centuries-- all are in danger.
Until enough individuals really come to grips with that and learn how to deal with it, such discussions are simply becoming more and more irrelevant because they are hopelessly fragmented and incomplete.
The ignorance, corruption and contempt with which we currently see the so-called leaders of the world heedlessly wielding their power, power which true leaders would be using instead to help humanity and the planet, should be an indicator of how far down the path of the elite's chosen (for the rest of us) destruction the world has already progressed.
There are none so blind as those who will not see, but for those who see but still do not understand, there is still a huge amount of comprehension, and then real work, that needs to be done.
It's not just a matter of connecting dots anymore, it's a matter of understanding that the entire structure is in danger of crumbling, and that devoting all one's attention to this puzzle or that puzzle isn't going to achieve anything much if the very platform that supports all those puzzles is about to be removed.

[Jayke]

Some big picture context from Thierry Meyssan. Talks about Trumps secret plan to broker peace in the Middle East.

==========

• https://www.voltairenet.org/article209105.html

The deal of the century
by Thierry Meyssan

The document released this week by the White House, Peace to Prosperity, should be taken for what it is: a proposal to work on a new basis, not a definitive peace plan. For Thierry Meyssan, instead of protesting against this project, it must be examined. It is an opportunity to unblock a situation that has been rotting for three quarters of a century.



When the foundations of international law were laid in 1899 at the Hague Conference, the aim was to prevent wars between states by means of arbitration. When the British Empire decolonized Mandate Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict erupted, international law was of no recourse because there was neither a Palestinian nor a Jewish state. So they tinkered with incoherent rules that we, wrongly, consider to be immutable.

The principles that the founding states of the United Nations, including Syria, drew up in the plan for the partition of Palestine were rejected by both sides. When the Yishuv unilaterally proclaimed the State of Israel and immediately carried out extensive ethnic cleansing (the Nakba), the UN recognized the new state, but sent Count Folke Bernadotte to verify the reality on the spot. He noted Israel’s crimes, advocated limiting by two thirds the territory allocated to the Yishuv, but was assassinated by the Lehi of Yitzhak Shamir, before he could present his report in New York. More than 700 General Assembly resolutions and more than 100 Security Council resolutions later, the conflict had escalated and no solution was in sight.

President Trump had imagined that he would be able to square the circle before the end of his mandate. As soon as he was elected, he was mistakenly considered pro-Israel when he is just a New World businessman.

He started from the following observation: Israel ethnically cleansed the territory it self-allocated in 1948. It fought the 1967 war, which it won.

The Palestinians fought the 1970 war with Jordan, the 1973 war with Israel, the 1975 war with Lebanon, the 1990 war with Kuwait, and the 2012 war with Syria, all of which they lost. But neither group intends to assume the consequences of its actions.

The debate has been distorted since Yasser Arafat, refusing to be marginalized by the Madrid process, abandoned the project of a binational State based on equality between Arabs and Jews and violated the 1948 partition plan by signing the Oslo Accords. The principle of the "two-state solution", devised by Yitzhak Rabin, the former ally of the South African apartheid regime, is nothing more than the creation of Palestinian Bantustans, an extension of what President Jimmy Carter called "Israeli apartheid".

Trump has therefore devised a peace plan that he has begun to implement silently over the past two years.

On December 6, 2017, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, without specifying its borders, hoping in vain that the Palestinian Authority would move from Ramallah to East Jerusalem.

He withdrew US funding from UNRWA in order to force the international community to stop sponsoring the status quo. This provoked the fury of the Palestinian Authority and severed diplomatic relations between Ramallah and Washington. As heir to the people who had stolen the land from the Indians, he recognized Israel’s conquest of the Syrian Golan, hoping to open negotiations with Damascus, but reaping only the condemnation of 193 States.

He secretly negotiated an agreement between Israel and Hamas that led to the payment of Gaza officials by Qatar.

The document published by the White House this week is presented by its authors as unenforceable because it does not have the support of both parties (page 10). It presents a process in four years, that is to say during the next US presidential term. It is therefore a document for electoral use in the United States, not a final peace plan.

Rather than whining and denouncing a fait accompli, we need to understand where the White House is going, especially since we reject Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

Donald Trump is a businessman who has put an unacceptable plan on the table in order to achieve much less, but to achieve peace. He is a disciple of President Andrew Jackson who substituted negotiation for war with the Indians. Certainly, the agreement he signed with the Cherokees was sabotaged by his own army and gave rise to the atrocious episode of the Trial of Tears. But today, the Cherokees are the only Native American people to have survived European immigration as such.

The publication of this document was also a trap into which Benjamin Netanyahu fell headlong. Without waiting, the Israeli Prime Minister loudly welcomed the plan in order to eclipse his competitor, General Beny Gantz. Netanyahu had cause to regret this. All the Arab League states stood united, including Qatar, which is secretly participating in the plan. The years of Israel’s efforts to break the Arab front by relying on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Oman have been wiped out.

==========

[Gracy]

Posted by Jayke (here)

Donald Trump is a businessman who has put an unacceptable plan on the table in order to achieve much less, but to achieve peace. He is a disciple of President Andrew Jackson who substituted negotiation for war with the Indians. Certainly, the agreement he signed with the Cherokees was sabotaged by his own army and gave rise to the atrocious episode of the Trial of Tears. But today, the Cherokees are the only Native American people to have survived European immigration as such.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article209105.html

Andrew Jackson, Andrew Jackson, Andrew Jackson, the Trump/Jackson bromance continues according to Thierry Meyssan in that piece....



Andrew Jackson was the very personification of "Manifest Destiny" early on in these United States. What was, and still is, the good old American ideal of "Manifest Destiny" some might ask?

noun:

the 19th-century doctrine or belief that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=...4dUDCAo&uact=5

The "Indian Removal Act" Jackson signed into law in 1830 was Manifest Destiny.

The self-serving concept of manifest destiny, the belief that the expansion of the United States was divinely ordained, justifiable, and inevitable, was used to rationalize the removal of American Indians from their native homelands. In the minds of white Americans, the Indians were not using the land to its full potential as they reserved large tracts of unspoiled land for hunting, leaving the land uncultivated. If it was not being cultivated, then the land was being wasted. Americans declared that it was their duty, their manifest destiny, which compelled them to seize, settle, and cultivate the land.

https://americanexperience.si.edu/wp...an-Removal.pdf

The "negotiation" Meyssan speaks of would be the "Treaty of New Echota" (1836), designed to enforce the Indian Removal Act. It would be a typical white man speaks with forked tongue type of treaty. Again, inspired by the ideal of Manifest Destiny:

Native peoples resisted their displacement by every means available to them, including through public and political debate and in the courts. But with the passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830, Southeastern Indian nations faced enormous pressure to move west. A minority party of Cherokees concluded that their only course was to negotiate a removal treaty with the United States. With no authority to represent their people, the treaty signers gave up all Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi River. In exchange the Cherokees would receive five million dollars and new lands in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). The treaty, signed at New Echota, Georgia, in December 1835, established a deadline of two years for the Cherokees to leave their homelands.

A majority of Cherokee people considered the Treaty of New Echota fraudulent, and in February 1836 the Cherokee National Council voted to reject it. Led by Principal Chief John Ross, opponents submitted a petition, signed by thousands of Cherokee citizens, urging Congress to void the agreement. Despite the Cherokee people’s efforts, the Senate ratified the treaty on March 1, 1836, by a single vote, and President Andrew Jackson signed it into law.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs...ty-new-echota/

There are glaring examples of Manifest Destiny all throughout U.S. history (like stealing a big hunk of Mexico's land just a few years later in the march westward), right up to present day. Always striving for full spectrum dominance not only around the planet, but beyond.

Why is Andrew Jackson considered such a wonderful role model for an American President?

Because Manifest Destiny is the go to model for an American President?

The go to model for America, period?....

[edina]

Gracy, this may be a bit off topic, but you seem to have a knack of finding fault about America in a way that often surprises me.

I wonder sometimes, if you just simply hate America?

Do you find anything good, or positive, about your country?

[Gracy]

Posted by edina (here)
Gracy, this may be a bit off topic, but you seem to have a knack of finding fault about America in a way that often surprises me.

I wonder sometimes, if you just simply hate America?

This is often the go to charge for people who don't follow the company line of interventionism. It can also manifest in "why do you hate the troops", but all in the same bucket.

Bottom line is the initial point is never addressed. You, Edina, have not addressed one single thing I just said, except to change the subject to why do I hate my country.

[edina]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by edina (here)
Gracy, this may be a bit off topic, but you seem to have a knack of finding fault about America in a way that often surprises me.

I wonder sometimes, if you just simply hate America?

This is often the go to charge for people who don't follow the company line of interventionism. It can also manifest in "why do you hate the troops", but all in the same bucket.

Bottom line is the initial point is never addressed. You, Edina, have not addressed one single thing I just said, except to change the subject to why do I hate my country.

Actually, Gracy, I asked the question because I honestly would like to know the answer.
I intentionally did not quote the previous comment and clarified that I my question may be off topic.

It's fine with me if you hate America? You're free to do so to your heart's content.

The question I asked was if you find anything good or positive about your country?

You're also free to not answer it if you want.

I just can't tell, is all.

[edina]

To speak to Jayke's comment bringing in Thierry Meyssan's article speculating on what he thought may be happening with the Middle East Peace Plan recently presented.

Thierry Meyssan is an intellectual and it would make sense to me that he would bring up history as a way to support his ideas. I found it thought-provoking, and am still mulling it over.

I think the bit addressed in your comment involves this statement:

Donald Trump is a businessman who has put an unacceptable plan on the table in order to achieve much less, but to achieve peace. He is a disciple of President Andrew Jackson ...

I'm leaving a part of it out, because my understanding of Trump's admiration for Andrew Jackson is that it has more to do with his ideas about banks, rather than how he handled the deteriorating situation in the South with the Indian tribes there and the settlers.

My husband's great grandmother was a baby, when her parents threw her off of the Trail of Tears. They didn't know if they were going to a place where they could live, or a place to where they would be killed.

I myself have Cherokee, Chocktaw, and Commanche in me. I also have German, Finnish and Black Irish.
The Black Irish were the first slaves in America.
So this is a part of my genealogical heritage.

I'm a mutt.

The part of Thierry Meyssan's ideas that I feel has most merit is that the MEPP plan is the first step to an ongoing negotiation process.

It is a different approach than what has been tried in the past. So, to think about it in the terms of past efforts probably wouldn't work.

I'm still in the process of reading the 181 page Prosperity for Peace plan pdf.

[onawah]

I think if Trump is reelected, we had better not take it for granted that he is going to care as much about his popularity as about pushing through his personal agenda, which doesn't have a lot to do with what the people want or need.
This is worth re-reading:
"In 2000, before he ever had aspirations of running for President as a Republican, Trump released a book with a chapter on Social Security.4 In this chapter, he displayed utter contempt for Social Security and its beneficiaries.

Trump referred to Social Security as “a ponzi scheme.” He called for raising the retirement age to 70, because “How many times will you really want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon?" He said that he “plans to work forever”, which is easy enough for someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But what about everyday people who work in careers such as nursing or construction that involve hard physical labor?

Trump added that destroying Social Security by privatizing it “would be good for all of us.”

What happened between 2000 and the 2016 election? Trump developed a keen understanding of the politics of Social Security. He realized that, once you leave the Mar-a-Lago crowd, voters of all political affiliations overwhelmingly oppose cutting benefits. Yet Republican politicians, at the behest of their billionaire donors, go against the will of their voters by supporting cuts.

Trump exploited these divisions ruthlessly in the Republican primary, tweeting that “I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.”5

But just because Trump realized that publicly supporting benefit cuts is politically toxic doesn’t mean that his real views have changed. Trump’s selection of Mike Pence as a running mate foreshadowed how he would govern. Pence supports raising the retirement age 6 and led a group of House Republicans in criticizing George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization plan—for not going far enough!7 Someone genuinely committed to protecting Social Security would never select Pence as their top deputy.

Once elected President, Trump threw his commitments to protecting Social Security out the window. His most recent budget proposal would cut $25 billion from Social Security and $845 billion from Medicare. Fortunately, House Democrats have declined to pass that budget into law. But, since then, Trump has found sneakier ways to attack Social Security."


God help us if he continues giving the nod to the vaccine agenda, the 5G agenda, the slow murder of Julian Assange and all that implies about freedom of speech, more hawkish war policies on Earth and space, and so and on...
Which is pretty apparently not just Trump's intentions, but those of the puppet masters who continue to call the shots from behind the scenes, however we might like to think otherwise, or allow ourselves to be distracted from their machinations. Whether there is another candidate who could possibly oppose that is doubtful, but at this point I think Sanders is really the only one who might have a whisper of a prayer, in spite of his own party not supporting him.
He could help to make Dems more honest, and at least wouldn't inspire the same contempt that other Dem candidates would among conservatives.

Posted by T Smith (here)
Or... a third possibility. He's finally learning how to assume the role of politician and say the most palatable thing required of the moment, depending on with whom he's speaking. It's a dirty game, a distasteful game, and one that will frustrate if we choose to hang on every word said by every politician to every special interest group. In short, contradictions abound... and the truth be damned.

I'm not condoning Trump's words here, but in this case if we are truly concerned about what those words mean it may behoove us to consider the broader context. Specifically, in the case of Davos et. al, I would be much more concerned about almost any other politician not named Trump (or not named Ron Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, etc., who will never have a snowball's shot in hell of ever representing us plebs) of ever being beholden to Wall Street billionaires. Regardless of the inconsistencies of rhetoric inherent to every elected public official ever to assume high office, we know Donald Trump is a populist president--arguably the first populist POTUS to somehow assume the office since Andrew Jackson. That means his base--or the main (and only) special interest group supporting his presidency (and therefore, the only special interest group to whom he is truly beholden) is the people, the masses, the plebs--or, depending on one's vantage, the deplorables.

Were Trump ever to lose the support of the "unwashed masses"--and I can think of no better way to do so than to effect entitlement cuts like social security or medicare--he would be finished as a politician. The populist uprising would toss him to the curb as quickly as they put him there.

[T Smith]

Posted by onawah (here)

Trump released a book with a chapter on Social Security.4 In this chapter, he displayed utter contempt for Social Security and its beneficiaries.

Trump referred to Social Security as “a ponzi scheme.”...

Hi Onawah, does the article cite Trump's book (or chapter)? If so, can you please link to it? I would like to read it in its entirety before i render judgment about someone else's interpretation of it.

For example, social security is technically a "ponzi scheme", by definition. One can maintain contempt for the fact that our current social security model is a ponzi scheme while at the same time support the idea of some form of real social security. I'm not at all saying these are Trump's ideas (I haven't read the book)...or mine; i'm just pointing out criticism of our current social security system and criticism of the concept of social security itself are two different things. I find people often conflate these two concepts, depending on what argument they are trying to advance.

I'm assuming most of us here understand this, but it's actually surprising how many Americans don't really understand this. Most of us envisage that we "pay into" something all our lives, or conceptualize the notion that we "set aside" savings, as it were, as a sort of socialized pension plan for our retirement or for emergencies if we become disabled. This is definitely not how it works. Our current system is a tax paid by the abled. The public coffers will then pay out benefits, so long as there are public funds available to pay out. The latter condition has nothing to do with how much money able persons are being taxed or how much a person was taxed during their working years. So the entire model is technically a ponzi scheme, dependent on a functioning and stable monetary system, among other things. For now it seems to be working, but it's problematic (and highly inflationary) at the very least.

The question around the privatization of SS vs. our current system is, to whom do you trust your life savings? The government? Or a private company and/or the market? Hard choice, for sure.

Rather than paying a tax to the government and "trusting" that the system won't succumb to hyperinflation or collapse in on itself with no benefits available by the time one reaches retirement age, a better solution might be something along the lines of setting aside the tax into a privatized fund, tied to the market, but which is highly regulated and insured by government, as in the model of FDIC/NCUA insured banks, etc.

[T Smith]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Why is Andrew Jackson considered such a wonderful role model for an American President?

Let's clarify. It is true Andrew Jackson is a controversial historical figure, but his comparisons with Donald Trump have little or nothing to do with Jackson's most egregous controversies. Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump are alike because both men are populist presidents, a rare breed in American politics. Andrew Jackson, like Trump, specifically ran on a platform of the common man. The Jackson Administration waged a vehement battle against the "Deep State" and the PTB of his day, namely Nicholas Biddle and cohorts at the Second Bank of the United States. The history of this drawn-out political battle (and ultimate defeat of the bank), under Jackson's drive and will, including his survival of an assassination attempt, is fascinating.

It is also true that Jackson signed the 1830 Indian Removal Act into law and I do not condone the consequences from the comfort of 20/20 historical hindsight. But Manifest Destiny is a long-and-drawn-out narrative well before Andrew Jackson's tenure and entirely separate from the Trump/Jackson comparisons--arguably more a cultural reflection of 19th-century America than a rendering of Andrew Jackson as a political figure. History may judge the political solution of engaging in negotiations with Native American Tribes in exchange for expansionism on Indian ancestral lands (a euphemism for forceful removal) as immoral, and I would be the first to agree. But in my view this is more an indictment on human nature and on the acculturation driving the dialectic of human civilization itself than a judgment on Andrew Jackson.

[Ernie Nemeth]

The question around the privatization of SS vs. our current system is, to whom do you trust your life savings? The government? Or a private company and/or the market? Hard choice, for sure.

Rather than paying a tax to the government and "trusting" that the system won't succumb to hyperinflation or collapse in on itself with no benefits available by the time one reaches retirement age, a better solution might be something along the lines of setting aside the tax into a privatized fund, tied to the market, but which is highly regulated and insured by government, as in the model of FDIC/NCUA insured banks, etc.

To address this particular statement because I feel it to be fundamental...

If social security is the issue, the very thing that makes social security insecure is not the thing to rely on for security. I am of course talking about money, whether bits of paper, metal disks, or blips on a screen. Since it is a rigged game, going back through the mists of time to the first recorded history of the Babylonians, it is a zero sum game...you cannot ever win.

It is hard to make a case for any mid-level topic of contention because to discuss it is to first accept its conditions. That is why we are hamstrung when searching for options to better protect our investment. But an investment in a rigged game cannot have a satisfactory outcome regardless of the level of sincerity or integrity of those implementing the changes.

If we were truly interested and concerned for our social security we would insist on being paid in tangible goods, so that inflation and other undesirable effects would be a function of the ability of companies to actually compete on a level-playing field.

Since we get paid in fiat currency and since that currency floats on a tide of irrationality, we can never have social security.

If a company had to pay in the form of mortgage payments, food, gas, vacations, retirement income, etc., their bottom lines would necessarily have to adjust to ensure social security for all their employees.

As it stands today, our pay is continuously under pressure, and buys less every day. What this means is that like a brand new car just driven off the lot, the minute you start working you are already earning less money than you agreed to the day you went for the interview and were hired. From there it becomes a game of catch up that can only be viewed as a loss.

That is why capitalism works so well - because it is a parasitical approach to social security, where the game is exactly that - the stealing of the social security of millions for the benefit of a very few...

[onawah]

In the list of references in the article, #4 linked to this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...e-of-the-union
Trump On Social Security In His 2000 Book: A Ponzi Scheme We Must Privatize
"Does the name Ponzi all of a sudden come to mind?"
Andrew Kaczynski
BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on September 29, 2015

"Donald Trump says today he wants to save Social Security from insolvency not by raising the retirement age but by taking money back from other countries.

"What I want to do is take money back from other countries that are killing us and I want to save social security," The Donald said on 60 Minutes on Sunday. "And we're going to save it without increases. We're not going to raise the age and it will be just fine."

"We will set it up by making our country rich again," Trump said when asked how he would fix the program. "We are going to do great. As a country we are going to do great."

But when Trump first flirted with running for president in 2000, he wanted to privatize the program and raise the retirement age, and called the program a Ponzi scheme.

"Fast-forward to 1941," writes Trump after a long explanation of the first Ponzi scheme to intro his chapter on "Making Social Security Secure Again."

"This is the second year Social Security benefits have been paid," he continues, "The first recipients of Social Security, even once inflation was factored in, got the equivalent of a 36.5 percent annual interest rate on their initial contributions into the Social Security Trust Fund. For those retiring in 1956, their inflation-adjusted rate of return was still a respectable 12 percent. Julie Kosterlitz, in the National Journal, compares that figure with this: For those who are working now and looking to retire after 2015, their returns will be below 2 percent. And that's if they ever get paid at all. Does the name Ponzi all of a sudden come to mind?"

Trump proposed a number of solutions, first an age of seventy for the retirement age.

"A firm limit at age seventy makes sense for people now under forty," Trump writes. "We're living longer. We're working longer. New medicines are extending healthy human life. Besides, how many times will you really want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon?"

"The way the workweek is going, it will probably be down to about twenty-five hours by then anyway," he continues. "This is a sacrifice I think we all can make. And I don't accept the criticism that it's easy for guys like me to tell thirty-year-olds they shouldn't retire until they're seventy . Like a lot of people I know, I plan to work forever. My father was in his late eighties before he stopped coming to the office. If you're wondering when my retirement date will be, it will be about one day shy of the death date chiseled on my tombstone."

Next, Trump says privatization is the answer.

"Privatization would be good for all of us. As it stands today, 13.6 percent of women on Social Security live in poverty," Trump writes. "Harvard University researchers studied almost two thousand American women who retired in 1981 and found that virtually every woman—single, divorced , married , or widowed— would probably be better off financially under a system of fully private investment accounts."

"Not one woman would have been worse off," he writes. "On average, personal accounts would have provided a single woman with 58 percent more than Social Security, and wives with 208 percent more. Directing Social Security funds into personal accounts invested in real assets would swell national savings, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into jobs and the economy. These investments would boost national investment, productivity, wages, and future economic growth."

Finally, Trump writes the answers couldn't be "more obvious": invest your Social Security in stocks and bonds.

Writes Trump:

The solution to the Great Social Security Crisis couldn't be more obvious: Allow every American to dedicate some portion of their payroll taxes to a personal Social Security account that they could own and invest in stocks and bonds . Federal guidelines could make sure that your money is diversified, that it is invested in sound mutual funds or bond funds, and not in emu ranches . The national savings rate would soar and billions of dollars would be cycled from savings, to productive assets, to retirement money. And unlike the previous system, the assets in this retirement account could be left to one's heirs, used to start a business, or anything else one desires. This sounds simple, so simple that it takes a ninety -year-old retired washerwoman to make plain a solution that has eluded politicians and economists from the elite universities. The strength of the idea, letting people keep the money that is rightfully theirs and investing in something more valuable than IOUs, is gaining so much popularity that the politicians are being forced to pay lip service to it."

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by onawah (here)

Trump released a book with a chapter on Social Security.4 In this chapter, he displayed utter contempt for Social Security and its beneficiaries.

Trump referred to Social Security as “a ponzi scheme.”...

Hi Onawah, does the article cite Trump's book (or chapter)? If so, can you please link to it? I would like to read it in its entirety before i render judgment about someone else's interpretation of it.

It's interesting to me that I believe nowhere in this discussion has anyone mentioned that currently according to C. A. Fitts and others, there are approximately 35 trillion dollars "missing" from the US economy...a good example of the point I was making here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1334927

[Ernie Nemeth]

Trump's State of the Union Address had some hints that the tables would turn on those that pushed this impeachment thing to its limit, and dragged it out for years, while destroying many lives that had nothing to do with any Russian conspiracy about election meddling.

Roger Stone comes to mind. That is a politically motivated attempt to get even with a director who disclosed the truth about American hegemony and its history in his documentary series, The Untold History of the United States. He might get ten years for giving advice to a friend and for lying on a talk show interview and trying to get out from under a very unfair congressional witch hunt.

I wait with bated breath for the hammer to come down for the treasonous acts of some Dems, who dragged this tragic comedy to its inevitable conclusion and wasted the time and effort of so many. Not to mention trying to undermine the efforts of the President.

If Schiff is not hung by the neck in a public square, which he so aptly deserves, after being found guilty of treason, then Trump is a deep state operative. But I think we will see the justice department go after these criminals with great aplomb. Imagine Pelosi in a striped pair of coveralls. It would be an improvement on the old hag.

[Mark]

On the topic at hand, the schism between the parties, as designed and obvious as it has been, could not have been on greater display than during this speech. The absolute disdain expressed by the chosen proponents of each side of the American coin far outweighed any substantive charge stated in the speech. The President's continuing maverick course remains guaranteed to give rise to anger, dismay and hatred from the Left as his supporters grow even more ardent in their approval, admiration and support.

A scenario custom-built for drama and ultimate tragedy. If the system is being steered toward dismantlement, then a clearer indication of that could not have been scripted any better.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
This is often the go to charge for people who don't follow the company line of interventionism. It can also manifest in "why do you hate the troops", but all in the same bucket.

This is a "goto" deflection from the original argument in all cases when it occurs, and especially in this context. I expect it is the "ideas" of America that we hold that differ so greatly, and that is the real question being asked. Why do you hate the conception of America as Imperial Power, the excesses that made it the greatest country in the world and the zeal with which some branches of its government and a substantial proportion of its people continue to carry out atrocities around the world?

Posted by edina (here)
The Black Irish were the first slaves in America.

This will never be true, no matter how it is stated or in what context.

[Gracy]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
Trump's State of the Union Address had some hints that the tables would turn on those that pushed this impeachment thing to its limit, and dragged it out for years, while destroying many lives that had nothing to do with any Russian conspiracy about election meddling.

Roger Stone comes to mind. That is a politically motivated attempt to get even with a director who disclosed the truth about American hegemony and its history in his documentary series, The Untold History of the United States. He might get ten years for giving advice to a friend and for lying on a talk show interview and trying to get out from under a very unfair congressional witch hunt.

I wait with bated breath for the hammer to come down for the treasonous acts of some Dems, who dragged this tragic comedy to its inevitable conclusion and wasted the time and effort of so many. Not to mention trying to undermine the efforts of the President.

If Schiff is not hung by the neck in a public square, which he so aptly deserves, after being found guilty of treason, then Trump is a deep state operative. But I think we will see the justice department go after these criminals with great aplomb. Imagine Pelosi in a striped pair of coveralls. It would be an improvement on the old hag.

Although I'm no fan of this administration, or any others for that matter, I feel your anger and frustration there Ernie. Hopefully these absurdly ridiculous dems will stop this blatant obsession, just finally let it go and leave this in the hands of the voters, but I have a hard time seeing that. Especially after that lil stunt Pelosi pulled on live tv. Sigh....

Now what I continue to fail to understand, is where oh where is the once very vibrant anti war sentiment? Where is the anger and frustration at this administration continuing with the protocol of marching in lockstep with the Military Industrial Comlex, especially after this president campaigned strongly AGAINST this cruel and expensive practice.

I'm thinking much of this apathy has to do with our indoctrination into patriotism without question, being afraid to point to the elephant in the room for fear of being labeled anti American; but also, here in the West, it must be hard to empathize with the people US foreign policy is killing and oppressing, both overtly and covertly, because we're so well off and comfortable here it's hard to imagine.

[edina]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)

Posted by edina (here)
The Black Irish were the first slaves in America.

This will never be true, no matter how it is stated or in what context.

Probably the more accurate term would be "indentured servitude".

However, many people of the time looked upon the Black Irish with the same mindset as if they were a 'slave.'

This is not to diminish what Africans experienced.

And it's not to diminish what the Black Irish experienced, either.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

As to my question, as I explained earlier, I didn't see it as a go to deflection.

In fact, I didn't even know we were supposed to be in an argument about interventionism.

It was a question of genuine curiosity, and one I've asked myself several times.

The question I asked was if you find anything good or positive about your country?

That said, Gracy has addressed it to some degree in her response above.

Thank you, Gracy May.

[Mark]

Thanks for pointing that out, Gracy May. When Drumpf was elected, the apocryphal tale that he was approached by a coterie of Generals received a lot of play. From the so-called Patriot side of things, his perceived support by the Military Industrial Complex has always been explicit and, I'd imagine, his overt support and extravagant funding of the military in this budget and past budgets is a sign of that. The wars that are coming because of the environmental shifts and the continuing stratification of global wealth will probably require as many defenses for a nation that is unrepentant of its status in the world and the means by which it achieved that status and wealth as it can create, including walls, controlled immigration and electoral outcomes and overt, apartheid-like institutionalization of governmental and corporate structure.

Posted by edina (here)
Probably the more accurate term would be "indentured servitude".

However, many people of the time looked upon the Black Irish with the same mindset as if they were a 'slave.'

This is not to diminish what Africans experienced.

And it's not to diminish what the Black Irish experienced, either.

Yes, that is absolutely true and thank you for making this clarification. What the Irish experienced in North America and the Carribbean was often tantamount to slavery for a very specific time period and often resulted in the deaths of those so tasked with hard labor, especially during the years when Cromwell invaded Ireland.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Any of us who have had the great eye of the justice system glare down on us will understand the stress involved. It is the worst of feelings, being so helpless while the wheels of justice roll right on over.

I could not hold a job, write, converse, or think for months. Every thought was about the unfairness of the so-called 'justice' system. And how, since I was poor, could not even afford legal council. I had to go to court every other week for six months - 3 hour drive away from my home. It was devastating. And I was neither guilty nor even facing serious jail time for my alleged offense.

Now imagine Trump. Running a country. His friends and acquaintances being rounded up and interrogated. Some even ending up in jail. For years! For over four years!! Hog-tying his presidency!!!

I am genuinely impressed with his performance especially under such conditions. It is a wonder he even gets out of bed... And he has managed to run the country better than most of his predecessors who had no such legal headaches.

Kudos to Trump.

And now imagine, having been vindicated, how long he has been patiently waiting for his chance to get even. Making notes, planning a strategy, doing research, digging in the dirt so to speak, for over four years.

Now its his turn...

[Mark]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
Now imagine Trump. Running a country. His friends and acquaintances being rounded up and interrogated. Some even ending up in jail. For years! For over four years!! Hog-tying his presidency!!!

I am genuinely impressed with his performance especially under such conditions. It is a wonder he even gets out of bed... And he has managed to run the country better than most of his predecessors who had no such legal headaches.

Kudos to Trump.

And now imagine, having been vindicated, how long he has been patiently waiting for his chance to get even. Making notes, planning a strategy, doing research, digging in the dirt so to speak, for over four years.

Now its his turn...

Vindicated? Really? And, his turn to what, exactly? Use the office of the Presidency to further excoriate his enemies? Is Drumpf working to create a new system of government to replace the failing one we currently live within? Has he drained the swamp to the extent that he said he would or is the Deep State too powerful still? Are the Generals and the military prepared to help him with the task of rooting out the remaining miscreants and will his revenge encompass these dismal depths of perversion and evil? Are the mass arrests finally about to begin, is this what his lawyer, Barr, is about to do?

[Gracy]

Whether this president has run the country better than most of his predecessors, is both subjective, and open for hot debate. There is no case closed on the matter.

Now Ernie, it sounds like you're almost salivating at the possibility of cheering on a president hell bent on revenge against his political (and yes I agree most of them are a disgusting bunch) enemies.

I think what his political enemies have been doing is a great disservice to their country, how would the revenge factor, the counter ambush, be any different?

Personally, I can see that spectacle as being no different than watching two mob bosses of the same family having it out on the public streets.