President Trump's 2020 State of the Union Address [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : President Trump's 2020 State of the Union Address

RunningDeer

5th February 2020, 01:58

Fox News:

4pYaBf15xa4

ABC News:

BdU4MGyOmLA

Axman

5th February 2020, 03:33

Thanks Running Deer on top of the news Threads.
Your the best

The Axman

edina

5th February 2020, 03:42

The Best Is Yet To Come!!! :sun:

amor

5th February 2020, 05:16

Alien implants in Heads of Important People: I have been watching, from time to time, important people who seem to have a small black tentacle pushing its way past the corner of the person's mouth, etc., whether the person is speaking or merely sitting within sight of someone else who is speaking. My very first sight of this seemingly Alient Implant, was a video presentation being made by a hypnotist named Weiss who claimed to have regressed a great many persons of memories of previous lives. This person appears to be a gentle, knowledgeable soul who would not hurt a fly. However, as he spoke in the video, this thin black tentacle eased out of the right corner of his mouth and extended two inches downward before he became aware of the fact and got it back in. I played this video over and over to ensure that I was not imagining things. Since then, from time to time, but rarely, I briefly noticed this tentacle which the person in whose mouth it sat made efforts to get it back into his/her mouth using their tongue.

During the video above with President Trump's speech, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pYaBf15xa4, Mrs. Pelossi (spelling unknown) was having some difficulty trying to keep this thin tentacle from exiting the left corner of her mouth. I placed the Magnifying Rectangle which I have on my computer on her mouth to be absolutely certain that I was seeing what I thought I was seeing; and I am certain it was the same thing happening in her mouth. It is obviously something that everyone in the Congress must know about but not speak about because this thing is determined to get out and even with her mouth closed its tentacle shows itself. It is very black and so cannot escape notice. I have a mental picture of some life form which has attached itself to the back of the throat and into the brain and its tail, the thin tentacle is trying to exit the mouth constantly. Alien Mind Control Device Anyone??? I viewed the video again just to watch her desperately trying to keep this thing from showing itself. Had I not seen the Weiss video so clearly, I would not have been clued in as to what was happening in reality. Whenever it exited the left corner of her mouth (which would be on the viewer's right), she made motions using her tongue, which were obvious to me to get it to remain in her mouth. Please watch this video more than once and pay close attention to HER MOUTH. This sounds so much like Horror Science Fiction that people would not want to believe what they were seeing and therefore dismiss the possibility. However, I having had an eyefull elsewhere, am not so easily put off. What is Controlling those who rule over us?????

pyrangello

5th February 2020, 15:16

I can only imagine all the underhanded stuff that has happened in the last 4 years, remember some in congress said they wanted to impeach this president before he was even sworn into office. As I have been sued before , attorneys want to shake your hand and give you that warm fuzzy feeling that everything is fine when its actually the head of the snake you are shaking that will stick a knife in your back at every opportunity. I really can't blame President Trump for not wanting to shake the hand of this whatever. And to watch her tear up his speech reminded me of how childish she has become and the title politician doesn't even apply anymore. . That being said we are all now waiting for what will be the next investigation, better get use to this , these people are insane and drunk power. 50 year low unemployment , whats wrong with that?

Satori

5th February 2020, 18:43

It’s merely a crease or fold in her skin that begins at the corner of her mouth. The light casts a shadow in the fold making it appear dark. As we age our skin loses elasticity and begins to sag. Such folds at the corner of the mouth, and elsewhere, are common in older people.

Frankly, I find post #4 quite bizarre.

amor

6th February 2020, 00:55

RunningDeer

6th February 2020, 01:36

I apologize for posting the above error and ask that you disregard it.

I have tried to erase it without success. The lady is quite normal. I must really stop watching Avalon at three in the morning when I might be suffering from DT's due to sleep deprivation.

Hello amor, thanks for your explanation.

If you want to edit your post, click on the “edit” at the bottom, right of your post.

https://i.imgur.com/zvRP8Sj.jpg

You can double check your post by clicking the “preview changes”. Then “save changes” when you’re done.

https://i.imgur.com/X15uj5D.jpg

http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/cat.gif Hope you’re able to catch some ZZZzzzz….soon. http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/s-good-night.gif

Gracy

6th February 2020, 03:10

I couldn't help noticing Juan Guaido getting mega props. Oh boy....
s3PNWwVatRk

I wasn't surprised how Pelosi actually beat Pence to the punch in offering the rare bipartisan standing ovation.

Does this maybe tell us all a lil sumthin about the core agreements these folks have with each other that run more than skin deep? Like setting the example that we should all stand in honor of this already exposed CIA instrument of regime change?

We're all just supposed to smile, nod politely to each other, and pretend that he isn't?

By the way, the 50 second video must be watched on actual youtube.

Fellow Aspirant

6th February 2020, 04:08

I wasn't surprised when Trump refused Pelosi's offer of an outstretched hand. I'm glad she offered, at least.

I am surprised, however, at how "triggered" the cult members were by Pelosi's ripping up of the speech.

They missed a wonderful opportunity to bask in the warm reception of Trump's oration. Instead, they got side tracked by emotional outrage.

B.

Matt P

6th February 2020, 21:35

🙄
When you make the mistake of unlocking a blocked comment....

Ow_9MglZrhs

Matt

onawah

6th February 2020, 22:12

Surprise! Trump lied in the State of the Union
Social Security Works
2/6/20
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/trumpslies?link_id=3&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-surprise-trump-lied-in-the-state-of-the-union-2&email_referrer=email_718185&email_subject=surprise-trump-lied-in-the-state-of-the-union

("But just two weeks ago, President Donald Trump went to Davos to hobnob with Wall Street billionaires. While there, Trump sat for an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen, who asked him if “entitlements” would “ever be on your plate.” “At some point they will be,” Trump replied." NO DOUBT THE "SOME POINT' HE INTENDS WOULD BE AFTER HE IS RE-ELECTED. WHEN WILL PEOPLE REALIZE THAT CAMPAIGN PROMISES ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED? )

"This week, in his State of the Union address, Donald Trump told a great number of lies.

I’m glad I don’t have to fact-check all of them, but there is one lie that we cannot let stand: In last night’s State of the Union, he falsely pledged that “we will always protect your Medicare and we will always protect your Social Security.”

But just two weeks ago, President Donald Trump went to Davos to hobnob with Wall Street billionaires. While there, Trump sat for an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen, who asked him if “entitlements” would “ever be on your plate.” “At some point they will be,” Trump replied.1

His comments rightfully created quite a stir, since “entitlements” is how elites like those gathered in Davos refer to Social Security and Medicare. Trump ran in 2016 on a promise not to cut Social Security and Medicare.2 Insider code is necessary because cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not only terrible policy but deeply unpopular even with voters who make up Trump’s base.3 He’s been breaking that promise ever since, but his Davos comments are the first time he’s overtly admitted that he lied to the American people.

Either Trump was lying to the Wall Street billionaires in Davos, or he was lying to the American people last night. Trump’s pre-2016 history on Social Security, his actions while in office, and the people he’s surrounded himself with reveal the truth.

Trump thinks he can win re-election by lying to seniors about his own record. Social Security Works is setting the record straight.

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.

Trump’s administration is in the process of jamming through a rule change that’s designed to rip Social Security benefits away from Americans with disabilities. When Ronald Reagan made a similar rule change, hundreds of thousands wrongly lost their benefits and over 20,000 people died.8 The Reagan administration was forced to reverse the policy after massive public outcry. Now Trump wants to bring it back.

Social Security Works led an effort to deliver more than 150,000 public comments opposing this rule. But that’s not the only way we’re fighting back.

Trump’s administration is cutting Social Security right now. Trump, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to make more cuts in the future. But the plan was to keep that quiet until after the November election.

In Davos, surrounded by billionaires salivating over the prospect of gutting the American people’s earned benefits, Trump accidentally let the mask slip. At the State of the Union, he tried to put it back on.

It’s up to us to make sure that everyone in America sees what’s underneath before it’s too late.

Thanks,

Linda Benesch
Social Security Works"

References
1 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/davos-2020-cnbcs-full-interview-with-president-trump.html
2 https://medium.com/senator-bernie-sanders/14-times-donald-trump-promised-not-to-cut-social-security-medicare-and-medicaid-99beefa9f584
3 https://www.people-press.org/2016/03/31/campaign-exposes-fissures-over-issues-values-and-how-life-has-changed-in-the-u-s/
4 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/trump-on-social-security-in-his-2000-book-a-ponzi-scheme-we
5 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/596338364187602944
6 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boehner-pence-social-security-retirement-age_n_674793
7 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boehner-pence-social-security-retirement-age_n_674793
8 https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-12-04-8903150162-story.html

Also posted here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94907-Trump-is-NOT-the-answer&p=1334723&viewfull=1#post1334723

edina

7th February 2020, 00:53

I'm curious, what's people's opinions of George Soros?

And George Soro's funded organizations?

edina

7th February 2020, 01:22

I enjoyed this moment in the SOTU 2020.

I feel the young man, Ian, with his ambitions for "Space Force", had extraordinary poise for his age.

In this clip, Trump introduces his grandfather.
v-6XBNQJBpc

I think it's okay to feel good about the country you live in. And it's people.

It's a great counterbalance to the decades long, perhaps even centuries long, demoralization campaigns.

edina

7th February 2020, 02:22

Someone put together a video with the closing remarks of Trump's 2020 SOTU.
aDrtQlN6CkY

"This nation is our canvas. And this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored. Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American age, the American epic, the American adventure, has only just begun. Our spirit is still young. The sun is still rising. God's grace is still shining. And, my fellow Americans, the BEST IS YET TO COME!" - DJT

This is a vision. Where there is no vision, the people perish.
I remember learning this when I was in the Air Force, decades ago.

onawah

7th February 2020, 03:01

I compare Soros to the character Sorhed in the Harvard Lampoon's version of Tolkein's classic, "Bored of the Rings". Sorhed was the equivalent of Sauron.
See: https://www.tor.com/2018/02/07/tbr-stack-reviews-the-harvard-lampoons-bored-of-the-rings/
https://i2.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/BOTR3-e1517945785848.jpeg?fit=740%2C410&type=vertical&quality=100&ssl=1

"In 1969 Doug Kenney and Henry Beard, editors of the prestigious comedy magazine The Harvard Lampoon (and soon-to-be creators of the National Lampoon) co-wrote a deeply silly parody of Lord of the Rings called, wait for it, Bored of the Rings. It turns out that a long, debauched scene at the book launch for Bored of the Rings features prominently in David Wain’s (somewhat fictionalized) recent biopic of Kenney, A Futile and Stupid Gesture. While I was watching the film I realized that (a) I had the book, and (b) I had somehow never read it. And thus this week’s TBR Stack is born!

I have to say, I was shocked by how many interesting comedic thoughts Kenney and Beard stuffed in under all the silliness.

As a comedy nerd I’ve been maybe a little obsessed with the Lampoon. I’ve always been interested in the fact that a group of guys with Ivy League educations were the ones who paved the way to both the mainstreamed anarchy of early SNL and the entire school of “slobs vs. snobs” comedy that defined the early ’80s. So it’s especially cool to look at this book, written while Kenney and Bear were still in school, before they had any idea that their comedy hobby would become a real career.

When I started the book I found it slow-going: they open with a salacious scene between a Boggie (read: Hobbit) and an elf maiden, and then dive right into some obvious (and cheap, imo) gags by renaming Bilbo Baggins “Dildo Bugger” before crowing about how they’ve only written the book for a quick paycheck, and then spending entirely too much time on a chapter called “Concerning Boggies” that made me want to throw the book across the room. I thought this was going to be a lonnnng 160-page paperback.

But then the comedy kicks into a different gear when they begin mashing consumerism up with high fantasy tropes. The heroes of the story are renamed for junk food: Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin become Frito, Spam, Moxie, and Pepsi. Boromir becomes Bromosel; named after the antacid, Bromosel seems to be aware of the fact that he’s in a story, and breaks the fourth wall to comment on the action. Aragorn son of Arathorn, called Strider, is now Arrowroot son of Arrowshirt, called Stomper, the first in a variety of riffs on Disney. Gandalf isn’t a wizard because there’s no magic here. Instead he’s Goodgulf Greyteeth, described as a “discredited Rosicrucian,” “32nd Degree Mason,” and “Honorary Shriner,” and his great battle is with a “Ballhog” clad in a Villanova jersey. This is all silly and fun, but more telling is that the Goodgulf’s subsequent transformation is entirely cosmetic, centering on gleaming white bellbottoms, a Nehru jacket, and a far out medallion, rather than any spiritual growth.

The riders of Rohan become Riders of Roi-Tan, who are pretty clearly, um, Nazis, written in the same over-the-top parody style that Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner used to mock unspeakable horror, with drinking songs:

Ve dance und sing und valse und two-step
Und never ever mach der goose-step
Peace is vhat ve vhant und do have
Und a piece of anything you have

There’s a slightly sharper stab when the Roi-Tanners side-eye Gimlet, son of Groin, because he looks so…Dwarfish—a nice nod to the charge that Tolkien’s Dwarves were too close to anti-Semitic stereotypes. This more pointed satire jostles against the Narcs of Fordor, cast as a black leather-clad motorcycle gang, Tim Benzedrine and his old lady Hashberry, and Birds-Eye of the Vee-Ates, a Jolly Green Giant/Treebeard mashup who speaks entirely in produce puns. Again, silly. But Bored of the Rings does have a slightly more interesting current running through it: like Lolita, it took an easy, marketable hook, and used it to create a cutting satire of shallow consumerism and the good-old-fashioned American road trip.

BOTR was published in 1969. The American highway system was first codified by various ‘auto trail associations,’ which banded together to number the country’s highways by the mid-1920s. The Interstate system was formed in the mid-1950s as part of a gigantic public works program helmed by Eisenhower, in an effort to bolster a national defense system. But much like the internet, a program originally intended for military use was soon overrun by American civilians in search of escapism, and by 1960 the romantic ideal of a cross country drive had been cemented in the US collective consciousness. Whether it was a wholesome family traveling together and reading Brylcreem ads aloud, a lone searcher as in On the Road or Travels with Charley, or the weekly woobies of the Route 66 television series, the idea of getting various types of kicks on the American open road was irresistible, and ripe for parody.

BOTR takes the fellowship not to the Prancing Pony, but to a Howard Johnson Motor Lodge, already retro and nostalgic by 1969. They head to an “orange-and-green flashing sign” and find:

…a gaudy plexiglas and chrome inn, whose blinking sign portrayed a boar, rampant, devoured by a mouth, drooling. Beneath it was the names of the inn, the Goode Eats & Lodging. Passing through the revolving door, the party signaled the bell clerk, whose name tag read Hi! I’m Hojo Hominigritts!. Like the rest of the staff, he was costumed as a suckling pig with false sow’s ears, tail, and papier-maché snout.

It takes them into Riv’n’dell, the Last Homely House East of the Sea and Gift Shoppe (Barca-Loungers in every room!), and then into Lornadoon. Where Rivendell is recast as a gingerbread village, Lothlorien is a high-fantasy Knott’s Berry Farm or South of the Border, like any number of little roadside attractions that gradually outgrew their humble origins to become destinations in their own right.

On the far bank of the river they found a thick strand of dead trees covered with signs in Elveranto which said, “Come to fabulous Elf Village,” “Visit the Snake Farm,” “Don’t miss Santa’s Workshop,” and “Help Keep Our Forest Enchanted!”

“Lalornadoon, Lalornadoon,” sighed Legolam, “wonder of Lower Middle Earth!”

At that a small door in the trunk of a large tree opened, revealing a small room filled with postcard racks, loudly clicking cuckoo clocks, and boxes of maple-sugar candies. A greasy-looking elf slipped out from behind a taffy machine.

But it’s when we get to Saruman (renamed Serutan, after a laxative) that the claws really come out:

Down in the low valley lay the pastel pink-and-blue walls of Serutan’s mighty fortress. The entire city was ringed with walls, and around the walls was a pale-lavender moat crossed by a bright-green drawbridge… Beyond the walls the expedition saw the many wonders that had lured countless tourists through its portals in the past.

Amusements of all description lay within: carnivals and sideshows under permanent tents, fairies’ wheels and gollum-coasters, tunnels of troth, griffin-go-rounds and gaming houses where a yokel could lose an idle hour, and, if he wasn’t careful, his jerkin… Everywhere, they noticed, were the brainless grins of Dickey Dragon. Pennants, signs, walls all bore that same idiotic, tongue-lolling face, But now that once-beloved creature had revealed itself to be the symbol of its creator’s lust for power, a power that had to be ended.

And imagine my astonishment when this reliance on road trip cliches settled a longstanding debate in Tolkien fandom! Because now when Frito and Spam are rescued by an eagle (in this case Gwahno, The Windlord) it actually ties the book together perfectly. Gwahno is efficient to the point of rudeness, yelling at them to fasten their seatbelts, snapping at them to use the barf bags if necessary, and complaining about running behind schedule: he’s the encapsulation of everything wrong with air travel. After all their picaresque adventures in Americana and kitsch, they end firmly in the angry, efficiency-at-all-costs Jet Age. And thus this ridiculous parody becomes a commentary on the perils of modernism, just like Lord of the Rings itself.

Fair warning that much of the humor is dated (and there’s a Br’er Rabbit rewrite that’s not so much dated as racist) but there’s also some fun satire, and a genuine sense of affection for the source material that makes the whole enterprise worth the read."
**********************************************************
The review on Amazon.com at: https://www.amazon.com/Bored-Rings-Parody-Harvard-Lampoon-ebook/dp/B007EE4T3E

"The classic parody of The Lord of the Rings is back! With a brand-new “boreword” by Henry Beard.

The Power almighty rests in this Lone Ring.

The Power, alrighty, for doing your Own Thing.

If broken or busted, it cannot be remade

If found, send to Sorhed (the postage is prepaid).

It’s up to Boggie Frito Bugger and his band of misfits—including inept wizard Goodgulf Grayteeth, halfwit Spam Gangree, twins Moxie and Pepsi, and Arrowroot of Arrowshirt—to carry the Great Ring to Fordor and cast it into the Zazu Pits.

Can they avoid death by hickey tree and escape the dread ballhog? Can the fellowship overcome the narcs and Nozdruls hounding their every move and save Lower Middle Earth once and for all? Yes, of course—this isn’t Hamlet, you know."

I'm curious, what's people's opinions of George Soros?

( This may seem inappropriate to some, but I take Trump's address about as seriously as BOTR.)

T Smith

7th February 2020, 10:09

Either Trump was lying to the Wall Street billionaires in Davos, or he was lying to the American people last night. Trump’s pre-2016 history on Social Security, his actions while in office, and the people he’s surrounded himself with reveal the truth.[/

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.

Put another way, the special interest group most dependent on the aforementioned entitlements is the [B]only interest group supporting DJT. Sure, the likes of Davos and any other shrewd special interests will always do their sycophantic best to curry favor with whomever is in office, and any shrewd elected official will likewise always do their sycophantic best to say whatever said interest group wants to hear, but in this case i would judge all of this as only a rhetorical part of the game.

Now, all said, if social security or medicare is ever truly on the chopping block under the reigns of this POTUS, I'll be the first to reassess my judgments. But for now, these concerns carry little weight as far as I can tell.

GMB1961

7th February 2020, 23:17

Satori

8th February 2020, 02:09

Dear Satori and other readers of my above post: I viewed the above Video very very late at night without my magnifying glasses and assumed the movable magnifier would be sufficient. It was not. I have just viewed the video once again in detail. The speaker of the house has dark red lip liner on both lips with a lighter red on the remainder of the lips. This appeared similar to other videos I had seen which were very much more explicit and beyond question. I apologize for posting the above error and ask that you disregard it. I have tried to erase it without success. The lady is quite normal. I must really stop watching Avalon at three in the morning when I might be suffering from DT's due to sleep deprivation. Thank you Satori.

Thanks so much for your post.

Please understand that I truly was not attacking you and did not intend to assail your sincerity or good intentions. The reality of the situation is bizarre enough and I was at a moment when all this nonsense in Congress, and elsewhere, simply hit me. I felt the need to say something.

T Smith

8th February 2020, 03:31

I think President Trumps speech was really good I just thought the tearing up of the speech by the lady standing behind him wasn't a very nice thing to do on National TV. Obviously she holds him in contempt but to do that so openly and with malice is just not right. Thoughts?

Sign of the times... see my thoughts here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107185-Political-Polarization-Unmitigated-Rage-and-the-Unbridgeable-Divide)

onawah

8th February 2020, 04:21

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

8th February 2020, 15:30

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

==========

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 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/peacetoprosperity/), 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.

https://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/Voltairenet-org_-_1-1094-8c0b0-2-cc44d.jpg

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

9th February 2020, 00:22

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.... :kiss:

42441

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=ACYBGNQfD-Ojm5PAO1iHIGYEgg5vYNWwyw%3A1581204427402&ei=y0M_XveZGO-v_Qbq-4SYBA&q=what+is+manifest+destiny&oq=what+is+manifest+destiny&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.9187.11588..11886...0.3..0.247.1600.0j3j5......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i305i39j0i7i30j35i304i39j0i13.-QuBk53PbYs&ved=0ahUKEwi3q9nBjcPnAhXvV98KHeo9AUMQ4dUDCAo&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-content/uploads/2015/02/Manifest-Destiny-and-Indian-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/national-museum-american-indian/2019/04/24/treaty-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

9th February 2020, 00:47

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

9th February 2020, 01:03

edina

9th February 2020, 01:16

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

9th February 2020, 01:30

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 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/peacetoprosperity/) plan pdf (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Peace-to-Prosperity-0120.pdf).

onawah

9th February 2020, 05:00

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.

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

9th February 2020, 08:05

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

9th February 2020, 14:30

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

9th February 2020, 16:25

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

9th February 2020, 17:47

In the list of references in the article, #4 linked to this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/trump-on-social-security-in-his-2000-book-a-ponzi-scheme-we?link_id=7&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-surprise-trump-lied-in-the-state-of-the-union-2&email_referrer=email_718185&email_subject=surprise-trump-lied-in-the-state-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."

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: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?109871-President-Trump-s-2020-State-of-the-Union-Address&p=1334927&viewfull=1#post1334927

Ernie Nemeth

11th February 2020, 15:43

Mark

11th February 2020, 16:10

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.

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?

The Black Irish were the first slaves in America.

This will never be true (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/), no matter how it is stated or in what context.

Gracy

11th February 2020, 16:25

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

11th February 2020, 16:43

The Black Irish were the first slaves in America.

This will never be true (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/), 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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?109871-President-Trump-s-2020-State-of-the-Union-Address&p=1335069&viewfull=1#post1335069), 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

11th February 2020, 17:16

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.

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 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us/irish-slaves-myth.html).

Ernie Nemeth

12th February 2020, 16:10

Mark

12th February 2020, 16:28

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

12th February 2020, 16:36

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.

Pam

12th February 2020, 17:16

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...

I believe the reason that he can do this is due to his narcissistic, possibly sociopathic personality type. He will never doubt for a moment his greatness. He will never consider that any action he has taken is wrong. Although he appears to have compassion and empathy for others you will note that it is only extended to those that are on his team, so to speak. They are needed for confirmation of his greatness so in a sense he cares about them as background props. Look at how he speaks of those that oppose what he wants to do.

Having that kind of personality type can allow for almost super human fortitude. Imagine never having to feel empathy or try to consider another position other than what you want. Imagine being dead sure everything you do is the right thing, the best thing, the smartest thing,no need to second guess. He's not wasting energy second guessing himself, or considering what others say about him.

I am not trying to be cruel here, I have simply observed his personality type and believe it answers a lot of questions about what he does. I also worry that in certain situations he could be very, very destructive. If a situation or person can somehow make him feel vulnerable it could be bad.

Chester

12th February 2020, 17:28

My read - Trump was afraid to clean house when he took office. Trump had minimal connections to folks he could trust among the political class and the administrative state so he faced a dilemma. If he cleaned house, he would end up with a dysfunctional administration and that would be suicidal. So he bet on folks along the way always having a finger on the hair trigger of "removal" and this gave him more time to get his administration in order. He also understood that if he cleaned house at the beginning, the shock to the deep administrative state might backfire so he opted for the slow roll removal process.

Also, he knew he'd have far more strength to remove once the colluding corrupt were exposed (as they have been for the most part with more dominoes to fall).

His strength has never been stronger and with the failed impeachment (soft coup) fresh in the minds of everyone, he's now acting on his very right to make these changes, to make these removals and clean up his administration. It is likely a job never complete, but its getting cleaned up more and more each day.

Having said that, it appears to me that Trump needs allies and has made allies in areas I would not believe suggest he is some "true-blue" fearless "do-righter" like some perceived JFK to be. But he may be playing it smart whereby these areas of concern I have today are addressed once he secures that second term (something that should never be taken for granted until he actually wins).

Ernie Nemeth

12th February 2020, 17:41

So, I'll take back the controversial part about Trump being any different than his enemies. I have no love for the man. He doesn't fool me. I wouldn't trust him half as far as I could throw him. I don't mean to fan the flames of Trump mania.

This thread is about Trump's State of the Union Address and its repercussions. His attack is next. That's all I was saying.

Of course they all work for the same side. That is patently obvious.

Fellow Aspirant

13th February 2020, 00:44

🙄
When you make the mistake of unlocking a blocked comment....

Ow_9MglZrhs

Matt

Hey Matt! Were you blocking me? I hope not. I'd hate to be responsible for triggering anyone around here. Personally, I have never "blocked" anyone. And never will. I try to move on from things I disagree with, and focus on those that matter.
As far as Frank Costanza goes, it looks like we share a common admiration for his character, a guy who was written to mock the whole self help movement, and psychiatry in general. He's fascinating. And his character is way more pertinent to today's strife than his writer creators could have ever imagined. He has spawned millions of imitators drawn to his identification. As I outline below, I think he may have created a monster.

First, some background:

Grievances

The airing of grievances was famously proclaimed by Frank Costanza to mark the beginning of his self-created pre-Christmas celebration. This event was the apotheosis of Frank’s life long claim to the status of victimhood. Begun in the family when George was a toddler, it is introduced to the Seinfeld world in this episode, when George is an adult.

Here’s a clip that depicts the origin of festivus (see @ 32 secs mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l8Eag9CAFk

Casting oneself in the role of aggrieved victim has since been adopted by whiners worldwide, none more flagrantly or effectively than D.J. Trump. He has become the patron saint of whiners.
This was noted early on in his campaign. Braying that he is the victim works for him, as he is fond of explaining. It’s how he gets what he wants. As he notes here in this 2015 interview with Chris Cuomo …

“I am a whiner. And I keep whining and whining until I win.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xms8iV8ae-c

Soon, commentators couldn’t help identifying Trump with the angry, beleaguered Costanza. This, from 2016 ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/27/donald-trumps-campaign-has-become-an-airing-of-grievances/

The record is replete with many examples. Here are just a few:

The Daily Beast carried this in 2017 …

“Presidential hopeful Donald Trump admitted he was an inveterate whiner during an interview on CNN Tuesday. “I am the most fabulous whiner. I do whine because I want to win. And I’m not happy if I’m not winning,” he said. “I’m a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/08/11/trump-doubles-down-on-3rd-party-threat

On MSNBC, July 6, 2018

Trump’s Latest Airing Of Grievances Includes New Jabs, More Praise For Putin | Deadline | MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAKmEEaXpIU

As his central motivating force, Trump has been consistent with his whining victim role.

This from Newsweek on November 22nd, 2018 …

President Donald Trump made a Thanksgiving Day phone call to members of the United States military Thursday but wound up trying to score political points and vent his personal frustrations.
As is presidential tradition, Trump took time out of his Thanksgiving celebrations to speak with troops stationed around the world. Yet many of his comments would have been more fitting for a Festivus airing of grievances, in the manner of the holiday invented by the sitcom Seinfeld and since popularized by many, including Republican Senator Rand Paul.

Donald Trump Calls Troops on Thanksgiving but Ends Up Having a Festivus Airing of Grievances

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-troops-thanksgiving-call-grievances-1228361

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAKmEEaXpIU

He was in fine whining form in this letter he had sent to 2019 letter to Nancy Pelosi …

• "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history," the letter said. "You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!"

• "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials," the president added, referring to the five women who were executed after being accused of witchcraft.

• Virtually all of Trump's claims in the letter were inaccurate or misleading. Scroll down to read what Trump wrote and how it stacks up with reality.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-sends-letter-to-nancy-pelosi-before-impeachment-2019-12

As one with an aversion to dogs, he was particularly aggrieved when his security comfort spotlight was briefly overtaken by Conan the military dog, as reported by The Independent in January of this year.

"Donald Trump complained that the military dog honoured for its role in the operation that killed Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi “got more credit” than he did, newly surfaced recordings reveal.
He said the “press wanted to give the dog much more credit than they gave me” for the killing.
“It’s true. The dog got more credit than I did,” he said. “The dog Conan became very famous.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-baghdadi-soleimani-maralago-conan-donors-audio-revealed-a9301206.html

Personally, I think that playing the aggrieved victim is a really sad way to live. Sick, really. In order to go at least some way to achieving one’s potential as a human being, it is far better to let go of the negative. Constantly revisiting what are believed to be personal attacks, immersing oneself in the swamp of simmering anger and plotting revenge is a sure way to a mental breakdown.

I prefer the stance of the writer of this piece in the Daily Stoic. At least it’s a way forward, out and away from a past you cannot change:

“C’mon. This is no recipe for happiness. No way to treat this fleeting existence of ours, nor these few days we have away from work and normal life. Remember Marcus Aurelius‘s line:
“Another has done me wrong? Let him see to it. He has his own tendencies, and his own affairs. What I have now is what the common nature has willed, and what I endeavor to accomplish now is what my nature wills.”
Practice kindness instead. Forgiveness. Forgetfulness even. Most of the frustration that family causes comes from their own pain, and very little of it is intentional. The same goes for friends. And for the world at large. There’s no need to borrow trouble or carry it around with you. Just let it go. No need for confrontation or some cathartic feats of strength at the end of the evening—to show who is boss.
Just enjoy the moment. And start the New Year with a clean slate.”

https://dailystoic.com/the-airing-of-grievances/

So let's let go of our grievances. All things shall pass.

Namaste Matt, and everybody else!

Brian

TommyPicklock

13th February 2020, 11:18

edina

13th February 2020, 14:13

Hi there,

since your last (US) election, I am carefully watching US politics, since I hold the opinion that POTUS can change the fate of the whole world. But it's far from being easy or simple. The swamp or the rabbit hole is too deep for an easy going job. Interested people can find some background to the current situation here:
https://ia800905.us.archive.org/31/items/MichaelSallaAntarcticasHiddenHistoryCorporateFoundationsOfSecretSpacePrograms/Michael_Salla_-_Antarcticas_Hidden_History_-_Corporate_Foundations_of_Secret_Space_Programs.pdf

Thank you TommyPicklock! :sun:

Downloaded and eager to read.

(It's written by Micheal Salla, still, I am keenly interested in Antarctica because of a few personal experiences I had related to it. There is much more there than what I think people realize.)

TommyPicklock

13th February 2020, 18:53

What's going on?

5d-XjgqTD_w

Tommy