Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Anyone who claims that the US "won" the Cold War has a very short sense of history.

 

It took longer for the US to collapse under the weight of its military spending, but we really screwed ourselves over

 

And look no further than Ronnie Reagan for the real rot. His faith in unbridled capitalism to crush the Soviets worked - until it didn't.

[kenberg]

Anyone who claims that the US "won" the Cold War has a very short sense of history.

 

It took longer for the US to collapse under the weight of its military spending, but we really screwed ourselves over

 

Won or lost is too simple. There were countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others that had been under Soviet control and then no longer were. So surely there was substantial change and it was a change desired by many people. Did the US cause this? Well, surely the US played a role. Should it be called winning? I would prefer saying that the US played a role in some very significant events . Of course this was also the beginning of involvement in Afghanistan. That has not done us any good.

 

The US played a role in the coming apart of the Soviet Union, it led to some opportunity, probably we could have done a better job of dealing with the aftermath.

 

Probably the sentence in the article I agree with the most is "If the U.S. is going to have any hope of prevailing in a new Cold War, it can’t simply rest on its laurels from the last century. ". In fact, this should have been said long ago.

[johnu]

Mea Culpa. I have to admit that my prediction in this post was 1000% wrong and totally off base. The Clown in Chief absolutely did not revised his estimate to 70-80000 deaths as I stupidly predicted.

 

Trump warns coronavirus death toll could reach 100,000

 

 

 

I am now totally confused after being so wrong before. My best guess is that in 2 or 3 weeks as the death toll approaches 100,000, the Grifter in Chief will revise his death estimate to 200,000. As long as the death toll in the US is less than 2 million, the Grifter will have claim he has done a sensational job. Even if the death toll is millions more than 2 million, the Conman in Chief will proclaim he did an outstanding job that nobody else was capable of and that only he was capable of leading the country through this crisis despite the fact that Obama did not have a vaccine in place to prevent COVID-19.

With the US death count from COVID-19 passing 97,000 United States Coronavirus Cases: on May 22, it is time for the Grifter in Chief to increase his August 1 expected death count once again. I wonder if the British bookies have a line on what this new and probably totally unrealistic number will be??? Last time he raised the estimate by 30,000 US lives lost. I would say an increase of 50,000, making the new estimate 150,000. There is also a strong chance he takes out his sharpie and x's out one of the zeroes, and predicts only 10,000 deaths in total because according to the right fringe conspiracy sites there has been an incredibly large overcount of coronovirus deaths reported.

[johnu]

More criminal incompetence from the Grifter in Chief and his little grifters.

 

U.S. Turned Down Offer To Manufacture Millions Of N95 Masks As Coronavirus Spread

 

 

Who needs N95 masks? Who needs any masks at all? Certainly not anybody in the White House. :rolleyes:

Former Trump Official Won Contract To Give Masks To Navajo Hospitals. Some May Not Work.

 

At least somebody is doing well in the coronavirus depression we are currently in.

 

A former White House aide won a $3 million federal contract to supply respirator masks to Navajo Nation hospitals in New Mexico and Arizona 11 days after he created a company to sell personal protective equipment in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

 

Zach Fuentes, President Donald Trump’s former deputy chief of staff, secured the deal with the Indian Health Service with limited competitive bidding and no prior federal contracting experience.

 

The IHS told ProPublica it has found that 247,000 of the masks delivered by Fuentes’ company — at a cost of roughly $800,000 — may be unsuitable for medical use. An additional 130,400, worth about $422,000, are not the type specified in the procurement data, the agency said.

 

Fuentes’ contract price of $3.24 per mask is more expensive than the pre-pandemic rate of about $1 per mask, but far less than what some government entities have paid at the height of the crisis. Mask costs can vary widely depending on availability, demand, quality and exact specifications.

By failing to invoke the Defense Production Act for PPE's, the Grifter in Chief has enabled and encouraged reprehensible price gouging by unscrupulous middlemen. If the Defense Production Act had been invoked for surgical/N95/N100 masks, the federal government could have required companies to supply masks at wholesale or near wholesale prices and could have required an increase in production capabilities that would have greatly alleviated the mask shortages.

[Winstonm]

Former Trump Official Won Contract To Give Masks To Navajo Hospitals. Some May Not Work.

 

At least somebody is doing well in the coronavirus depression we are currently in.

 

 

 

 

By failing to invoke the Defense Production Act for PPE's, the Grifter in Chief has enabled and encouraged reprehensible price gouging by unscrupulous middlemen. If the Defense Production Act had been invoked for surgical/N95/N100 masks, the federal government could have required companies to supply masks at wholesale or near wholesale prices and could have required an increase in production capabilities that would have greatly alleviated the mask shortages.

 

And of course the Don get his tribute, I'm sure.

[y66]

Donald Trump not invent yet, so just listen to random baby orange bum piglet make big pointless dumb squeak grunt of self important for now.

[Trinidad]

Won or lost is too simple. There were countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others that had been under Soviet control and then no longer were. So surely there was substantial change and it was a change desired by many people. Did the US cause this? Well, surely the US played a role. Should it be called winning? I would prefer saying that the US played a role in some very significant events . Of course this was also the beginning of involvement in Afghanistan. That has not done us any good.

 

The US played a role in the coming apart of the Soviet Union, it led to some opportunity, probably we could have done a better job of dealing with the aftermath.

 

Probably the sentence in the article I agree with the most is "If the U.S. is going to have any hope of prevailing in a new Cold War, it can’t simply rest on its laurels from the last century. ". In fact, this should have been said long ago.

From my, Western European, perspective:

It started in Poland with Solidarność. It was followed by Gorbachev realizing that there were more ways than the communist ideal and that individual freedom was important too. He saw that the cold war was: a) stupid madness and b) not sustainable.

 

Gorbachev simply decided to reform the Soviet Union and he realized that for that the cold war needed to end. So he decided, unilaterally, to stop the cold war. That meant that a big reorganization was needed in the Red Army and military industry where quite a few people profited from the cold war. So, he used all the power he had to realize this reorganization.

 

In my view, nobody won the cold war. Two sides lost it because of all the resources, including human life, that were wasted on building and maintaining this conflict. In addition, I think that in a few hundred years the history books will look a little bit different at the 20th century. I think that school kids will learn "World War II: 1939-1991".

 

Rik

[cherdano]

So when I see something and say "Hey, that doesn't look so good" I figure I am not the only one thinking that.

Do you believe the allegations?

If so, does it give you pause that Tara Reade made a number of material false statements about her CV under oath as an "expert witness" (or as part of the CV submitted to defense)? (Lied about her degree; lied when asked whether she had ever taken the bar exam?)

 

If you don't believe them, we are left with Ken Berg's sense of the optics of how Biden responded to a false allegations. Who thinks that others share his sense of the optics. And that these others might not vote for Biden even though they also don't believe the allegations?

 

 

"I don't like that politician X did Y. Politician X lost the election. Therefore, X lost the election because he did Y." is probably the purest form of the pundit's fallacy.

[kenberg]

Do you believe the allegations?

If so, does it give you pause that Tara Reade made a number of material false statements about her CV under oath as an "expert witness" (or as part of the CV submitted to defense)? (Lied about her degree; lied when asked whether she had ever taken the bar exam?)

 

If you don't believe them, we are left with Ken Berg's sense of the optics of how Biden responded to a false allegations. Who thinks that others share his sense of the optics. And that these others might not vote for Biden even though they also don't believe the allegations?

 

 

"I don't like that politician X did Y. Politician X lost the election. Therefore, X lost the election because he did Y." is probably the purest form of the pundit's fallacy.

 

I think I will just state the obvious: In a presidential election we should not underestimate the importance of optics. It's not the whole thing, but it is far from nothing. People, many people, expect that if a candidate has a good case to make then he will welcome the opportunity to present that case clearly and emphatically, and quickly. Biden might well say that's just what he is doing. I am skeptical. It is difficult to present an airtight case to justify skepticism. I don't think elections are won or lost via airtight analysis.

 

I think that we, as a country, are out of our collective minds if we re-elect Trump. I just wish I felt better about how Biden is going at this. He seems like a guy who is my age trying to cope with a world that has changed a great deal since he and I were young.

[y66]

Good point

 

Not wearing a mask in public doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look like a dick.

(Also, FYI, @realDonaldTrump, you will literally look better with your face covered.)

[y66]

Hoooooooly sh#t.

The fact that there are warnings like "Do not drink" on bottles of bleach makes me realise that Donald Trump can become president. (Tweet dated March 6 2016)

[kenberg]

From my, Western European, perspective:

It started in Poland with Solidarność. It was followed by Gorbachev realizing that there were more ways than the communist ideal and that individual freedom was important too. He saw that the cold war was: a) stupid madness and b) not sustainable.

 

Gorbachev simply decided to reform the Soviet Union and he realized that for that the cold war needed to end. So he decided, unilaterally, to stop the cold war. That meant that a big reorganization was needed in the Red Army and military industry where quite a few people profited from the cold war. So, he used all the power he had to realize this reorganization.

 

In my view, nobody won the cold war. Two sides lost it because of all the resources, including human life, that were wasted on building and maintaining this conflict. In addition, I think that in a few hundred years the history books will look a little bit different at the 20th century. I think that school kids will learn "World War II: 1939-1991".

 

Rik

 

Well, the results probably were different for the USSR than for the USA. There is no more USSR, there is still a USA. But still, I generally agree that won/lost is not the right way to look at it.

 

I remember the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, I remember a discussion with someone who escaped and was in the US, that was maybe 1957. But that's a lot different from saying I could write a book about what happened. Same goes for most of the events during the Cold War. I remember this and that and if someone reminds me I can remember a few other things. But how should we look at it historically? That's asking a lot. And how does it apply to today's world? That's asking even more. We might have been naive about problems and opportunities after the Soviet collapse..

 

 

I expect any substantial conclusion would require more thought than I have given to it.

[johnu]

Trump Promotes Posts From Racist and Sexist Twitter Feed

 

I expect nothing less from from the Imperial Wizard in Chief. B-)

[Cyberyeti]

 

Ricky Gervais @rickygervais said:

The fact that there are warnings like "Do not drink" on bottles of bleach makes me realise that Donald Trump can become president. (Tweet dated March 6 2016)

 

TBF this sort of thing has been around a long time. In 1984 I had a job in the city of London, working for a merchant bank that made their own computers. There was some plastic that you put round wiring and shrank by blowing hot air on it. To blow the hot air, we had a small hand held device that looked a bit like a hairdryer but much hotter. It had the warning "This is not a hairdryer" on it.

[Winstonm]

Things are looking up when the GOP begins eating its own children:

 

Ann Coulter went on an early Sunday morning Twitter tear, calling President Donald Trump “the most disloyal actual retard that has ever set foot in the Oval Office.”

 

The far-right media pundit and former Trump defender was triggered by the president’s Friday tweet in which he called for Alabama voters to “not trust Jeff Sessions” and instead put their support behind Sessions’ Republican Senate seat challenger, football coach Tommy Tuberville.

 

“3 years ago, after Jeff Sessions recused himself, the Fraudulent Mueller Scam began. Alabama, do not trust Jeff Sessions. He let our Country down. That’s why I endorsed Coach Tommy Tuberville (@TTuberville), the true supporter of our #MAGA agenda!,” Trump tweeted.

 

And that set off Coulter, who called Trump a “moron,” “retard” and “lout,” who was incapable of “pretending to be” a “decent, compassionate human being.”

[kenberg]

Things are looking up when the GOP begins eating its own children:

 

 

Not for the first time I am reminded of a five year old I once knew who would respond to playground taunts with "What you say is what you are, except the goodest part". I suppose she included the last clause just in case there might be some way of interpreting part of the taunt as a compliment. A resourceful child.

 

I visualize Ann and Donnie on a playground throwing sand at each other. Birds of a feather.

 

I had forgotten Ann Coulter. I hope to return to that state of mind.

[Winstonm]

Not for the first time I am reminded of a five year old I once knew who would respond to playground taunts with "What you say is what you are, except the goodest part". I suppose she included the last clause just in case there might be some way of interpreting part of the taunt as a compliment. A resourceful child.

 

I visualize Ann and Donnie on a playground throwing sand at each other. Birds of a feather.

 

I had forgotten Ann Coulter. I hope to return to that state of mind.

Something to consider - Trump appears to treat all perceived "enemies" the sane, and his enemy is anyone who criticizes or otherwise fails to be subservient to him, regardless of party.

 

How much abuse will those who are out-of-favor endure and still vote for him or rally others to vote for him?

[Winstonm]

Another conservative voice, S.E. Cupp, tells it like it is about Trump:

 

“I don’t think that the president’s behavior is that of a healthy, stable, balanced person. That he can’t focus all of his energy and efforts and attention on this global pandemic, on securing the physical and economic safety and health of this country, is very alarming. Instead, devolving down these rabbit holes of conspiracy theories, baseless conspiracy theories as you pointed out, attacking women for their looks and their weight, you know, threatening governors, one in Michigan for mail-in voting, another in North Carolina for not guaranteeing a full house at the RNC.”

 

“This is not how a healthy, controlled person would behave at all, let alone during a pandemic, and on a weekend meant to honor the memories of our fallen soldiers,” added Cupp. “I think it’s time for us to just call this what it is. The president is not well.”

[Winstonm]

[Chas_P]

The president is not well.”

 

And Biden is?

[Trinidad]

And Biden is?

Chas,

 

It is not just that Biden would have been a better president. Trump is managing this so badly... Even you would have been a better president.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

And Biden is?

 

This link was very useful to me in understanding just what we are up against.

The link goes to a youtube video that is 7 seconds long. Then we get more. I first thought that it was all one youtube link with various things on it but now I realize I was wrong. I'll explain why it matters.

The you tube videos come up rapidly, one after the other. Perhaps a person, that's me, could be forgiven for thinking they are all one video. After the first 7 second video there was a lengthy video of where several people who described themselves as experts on body language, very capable of recognizing false responses, discussed what I think was purported to be an interview of Biden on MSNBC. It was obviously spliced. So we have experts at detecting lies applying their skills to a spliced recording to show the speaker was lying.

 

I decided to look for the interview. I found it at

https://www.nytimes....eade-msnbc.html

 

Not surprisingly, Biden comes off much better in the non-spliced version.

 

So I decided to go back to your link and compare the spliced version with the non-spliced version. Yes, I get the same 7 second quickie to start, but after that I get other stuff about how awful Joe Biden is.

 

Whatever you might think of the NYT, if you bring up the link I posted, and then you close it, and then you bring it up again, you will see the same thing the second time that you saw the first. This consistency can lead to rational discussion.

 

So: The site you post is a 7 second quickie followed by various stuff, now you see it now you don't, the first time being a spliced video analyzed by self-proclaimed experts. It was total crap. Demonstrably total crap. But the second time up I got something else, probably also demonstrably total crap but different total crap. Robo-calls with phony telephone numbers and phony messages are a bastion of truth compared to this crap.

 

This youtubing is election campaigning in 2020. The Biden campaign will have to deal with it effectively. A portion of the electorate puts more faith in recorded crap on youtube than they do in a complete transcript.

This is a serious problem. We all have to choose where we stand on this.

[Winstonm]

This link was very useful to me in understanding just what we are up against.

The link goes to a youtube video that is 7 seconds long. Then we get more. I first thought that it was all one youtube link with various things on it but now I realize I was wrong. I'll explain why it matters.

The you tube videos come up rapidly, one after the other. Perhaps a person, that's me, could be forgiven for thinking they are all one video. After the first 7 second video there was a lengthy video of where several people who described themselves as experts on body language, very capable of recognizing false responses, discussed what I think was purported to be an interview of Biden on MSNBC. It was obviously spliced. So we have experts at detecting lies applying their skills to a spliced recording to show the speaker was lying.

 

I decided to look for the interview. I found it at

https://www.nytimes....eade-msnbc.html

 

Not surprisingly, Biden comes off much better in the non-spliced version.

 

So I decided to go back to your link and compare the spliced version with the non-spliced version. Yes, I get the same 7 second quickie to start, but after that I get other stuff about how awful Joe Biden is.

 

Whatever you might think of the NYT, if you bring up the link I posted, and then you close it, and then you bring it up again, you will see the same thing the second time that you saw the first. This consistency can lead to rational discussion.

 

So: The site you post is a 7 second quickie followed by various stuff, now you see it now you don't, the first time being a spliced video analyzed by self-proclaimed experts. It was total crap. Demonstrably total crap. But the second time up I got something else, probably also demonstrably total crap but different total crap. Robo-calls with phony telephone numbers and phony messages are a bastion of truth compared to this crap.

 

This youtubing is election campaigning in 2020. The Biden campaign will have to deal with it effectively. A portion of the electorate puts more faith in recorded crap on youtube than they do in a complete transcript.

This is a serious problem. We all have to choose where we stand on this.

 

I really appreciate you going to the trouble to fact check all this, not because I am Democrat but for my edification.

 

It is curious that someone(s) trying to undercut Biden's campaign is using the disinformation techniques of the Russia GRU to do so.

 

Notice, too, that with Trump there is no need for propaganda clips - he blows himself up everyday on Twitter and in his live comments.

[barmar]

This link was very useful to me in understanding just what we are up against.

The link goes to a youtube video that is 7 seconds long. Then we get more. I first thought that it was all one youtube link with various things on it but now I realize I was wrong.

Only if you have auto-play enabled.

 

For me, when the first clip ends, the video player is replaced with a mosaic of 9 stills from other videos in my queue.

[PassedOut]

And Biden is?

Biden did have to work hard to overcome his childhood stuttering, and sometimes remnants of that problem show up, especially under stress. But Biden does not claim to know everything and listens to people who know more about a subject than he does. Biden works with people who disagree with him politically to accomplish things that both sides can live with. He's a genuinely friendly guy -- even a bit too friendly sometimes.

 

Trump does not listen to people who know more than he does about a subject, even those who wish him to succeed. Trump blows up at anyone who contradicts what he says, no matter how off the mark he might be. That's a big reason so many competent people who originally decided to work with him for the sake of the country have moved on. Trump is a seething ball of misdirected rage.