06 Feb 17
Originally posted by kmax87Well, Argentina did invade. People sometimes point fingers at the way the then defence secretary had withdrawn the frigate that normally guarded the Falklands, but no one seriously thought Argentina, or indeed anyone else, would actually attack British Sovereign Territory. There was considerable doubt about whether the reinvasion was possible and some surprise in the Conservative back benches that she went the war route. The Falklands was not part of some Tory master plan for staying in power.
Unfortunately for the rest of us on this planet I think you are on point with the comparison to Thatcher and the mechanism she chose, a war with a nation Britain could convincingly beat provides a how to scenario for Trump's Presidency to be great.
The likely way a war will start with Trump will be the same way wars involving the US always start. The only remotely likely difference is that he will escalate from sabre rattling to actual war too soon.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThat is a good article. My concerns are what happens if a Troika of Trump, Putin and Bibi emerges, in part out of mutual admiration, and in part out of a perceived necessity, under a banner of homeland and energy security issues? The three-way admiration is clear. Who knows exactly what each partner's quid pro quo may be but there's an awful amount of oil in play, which buys an inordinate amount of peace and security for Israel as the nation on point, to stretch and yawn and settle as she pleases, if its two closest buddies carve out a zone of comfort around her. In this scenario who better than Rex Tillerson to have been confirmed as US Secretary of State?
So who can influence or stop this Troika if they gather momentum and somehow miscalculate and their enjoined interests threaten the stability of the region or even the world? Can NATO reform without the US? Can the UN ditch the Troika and provide resistance? Will this be the catalyst for the EU to form and launch a coordinated military response? Or will we watch transfixed as this train wreck about to unfold does so in 4K, ultra high definition, super slow motion?
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by vivifyApproval ratings only matter when you are about to be elected, not after.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-lowest-approval-ratings-any-president-in-us-history-poll-cnn-a7563091.html
[b]Donald Trump has lowest approval ratings of any President in US history
Just 44 per cent of respondents gave Mr Trump their approval, making him the only President since polls began to hold a negative approval r ...[text shortened]... s presidency, with 78 per cent saying he is handling things exactly as they would have expected.[/b]
Just saying....
Originally posted by Eladarhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/02/06/donald-trump-a-populist-what-a-joke/?utm_term=.40846dbaef96
I think you are wrong. I think he is a populist at heart. But we will see.
On Friday Trump signed another executive order instructing the Department of Labor to prepare the ground to rescind the “fiduciary rule,” a regulation the Obama administration wrote last year. It requires financial advisers to act in their client’s best interests, just like doctors or lawyers are required to. The need for it came about because often those advisers push their clients to buy products that are bad for them but that bring the advisers higher commissions.
In only two weeks, Trump has compiled a LONG list actions that are the exact opposite of "populist". The link covers just some of them (which are still a lot).
In Trump's America, the common person takes a back seat to corporate interests.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by vivifySo the bait and switch of Trump the populist to Trump the corporate enabler gathers pace.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/02/06/donald-trump-a-populist-what-a-joke/?utm_term=.40846dbaef96
[b]On Friday Trump signed another executive order instructing the Department of Labor to prepare the ground to rescind the “fiduciary rule,” a regulation the Obama administration wrote last year. It requires financial advisers to act in ...[text shortened]... still a lot).
In Trump's America, the common person takes a back seat to corporate interests.
I can't tell you the number of people I saw on TV being interviewed during the primary's who indicated they would vote for Trump because he would shake things up in Washington, but when pressed further they acknowledged that he probably wouldn't be able to change much, but given the choice of candidates Trump was the least worse option.
I think a lot of people are beginning to regret making that decision.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by vivifyI don't recall them in his favor. I have always known polls can be easily manipulated and made to serve an agenda by asking the right questions. So, no, I do not trust polls.
True...but when the ratings were in Trump's favor, did you complain about polls being false or untrue back then? Or was only when his ratings plummeted that you started saying this?