Draining The Swamp
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Friday, June 13, 2025 02:56
VIEWED: 32850
PAGE 3 of 29
Forbes ...
How to be President : the Art of the Deal ... are the same thing for Trump.
Hmmm?
Inside Trump’s Head: An Exclusive Interview With the President,
And The Single Theory That Explains Everything
https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/exclusive-interview/#1d086ceabdec
... oooOO}{OOooo ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there.
I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV.
But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole.
******
In KPO's thread about "The State of Freedom in Russia", he acknowledges that he's completely uninterested in "the state of freedom" in any other nation BESIDES Russia, and that includes the state of freedom in his own nation (Britain) and the state of freedom in the USA.
I asked him what accounted for his laser focus on Russia.
There are a lot of venal answers to that question, but in my view there is only one legitimate answer, only one reason why someone should focus on Russian events and policies, even to the exclusion of events in and policies of your own nation, and that is if you see Russia as such an immediate existential threat that it requires ditching every other concern, to hell with civil liberties, the deficit, and the marketplace! It's "all hands on deck and man battle stations!"
When I look at the threat posed by Russia, I simply don't see the need for that kind of response. The only REAL threat that they pose is de-dollarization (forcing the world off the petrodollar, which has given us an open credit card with the rest of the world since 1973), and even in THAT case, the answer isn't military or political, it should consist of us minding our financial matters better.
In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ...
staggering wealth inequality to
massive private debt to
potentially unstable banks to
the loss of the petrodollar to
a failed health care policy to
environmental collapse to
loss of manufacturing to
completely unbalanced trade to
illegal immigrants to
disunited public to
loss of commonsense values to
unemployment to
loss of civil liberties to
(add more here) ...
every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. Politicians who repeatedly stabbed us in the back, over and over, in favor of endless wars and ever-higher profits and rampant financialization and overconsumption based on debt. All for their corporate lords, who rake in the rewards while we get the shaft.
It wasn't "Russia" who got us to this point, or "Libya" or "Iraq" or any of the phony "enemies" that are constantly being popped up as distractions. It wasn't Trump who got us here, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton. It wasn't even "terrorism".
It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym,
If Trump resigned making Pence president, our situation would
be no better or worse,
If the Democrats win the 2020 election, our situation will be
no better or worse.
Is that what you are telling us?
If so, then things look very bad to me.
... oooOO}{OOooo ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As long as "establishment" candidates make it to Congress and the Presidency, IMHO the answer is pretty much "yes".
Oh, the Dems and the Repubs are different flavors, but when it comes to issues that affect the 0.01%, they pretty much sing from the same hymnbook.
Here's how I see the Dem establishment:
WAR
When it comes to making war, the Dems are just as war-mongering as the Repubs. Bush destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq, but Obama managed to destroy Libya and Ukraine, split Sudan, and tried to destroy Syria. BOTH parties moved our NATO forces towards Russia, but the Dems made a critical geopolitical error: They decided to "pivot to Asia" ( 2010 https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-pivot-to-asia-was-obamas-biggest-m
istake/) which forced China into the arms of Russia, and then their absurd sanctions and economic warfare against Russia forced Russia into the arms of China.
The difference in flavor? The Dems (Obama, Hillary, Kerry) favored proxy warfare and hybrid warfare, propelled by CIA/ State Department/ NGO/ Saudi-funded terrorist organizations, whereas the Repubs have generally favored the official military and big boots-on-the-ground actions.
FINACIALIZATION
Both the Dems and the Repubs are anxious to meet the desires of the 0.01% Bill Clinton gave up on financial regulation when he repealed Glass Steagall and signed the Commodities Futures Trading Act. The consequences weren't apparent until 2008. Both Bush and Obama tossed money at banks that speculated fraudulently, and despite Dodd-Frank, NEITHER party has reined in the rampant speculation (on credit) since then. And Dodd-Frank, due to its complexity, is preventing smaller banks - like community banks - from opening. There are answers to the problems, but I see no difference between the parties in how they treat financialization. Warren has made some weak-kneed moves towards "consumer protection", Kamala Harris, the up-and-coming CA Senator, caved in by accepting Obama's lack of banker prosecution ... the underlying weakness of the Dem position runs pretty much up and down the party.
The difference in flavor? The Dems are willing to make tiny concessions to "the people" as long as they don't impact the bottom line of the financialists.
TRADE
Both parties have pushed for greater international "free trade", once again favoring the 0.01%. Nixon "opened up China" with a special trade deal. Bill Clinton pushed for, and got, NAFTA, and CAFTA, and awarded China permanent normal trade relations, which helped them achieve acceptance into the WTO. GWB, according to the official website "increas[ed] the number of countries partnered with the U.S. on free trade agreements (FTAs) from three to 16". Obama attempted even broader scope "free trade" agreements with TTIP (Atlantic nations) and TPP (Pacific nations). Only Trump has pushed back on this, and he's being maneuvered into giving up many of his goals here, too.
The difference in flavor? None, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, I have to get busy, but I can give you a much longer disquisition on how I think the parties are the same and where they're flavored differently on issues like the deficit, the economy, and social issues. But overall, on anything that really matters, just plan on being stabbed in the back by both parties.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your William Blake quote is looking more relevant.
... oooOO}{OOooo ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to get back to how very much alike Repubs and Dems are when it comes to the 0.01% ...
WAR
The other flavor difference between Dems and Repubs is that Repubs tend to use military justifications for their wars of choice: Grenada was harboring Cubans (Reagan), Noreiga or Panama was a major drug runner (Bush 1), Afghanistan was harboring Osama bin Laden (Bush 2) and Saddam "had WMD" (Bush 2).
Dems tend to frame their military interventions as "helping"(!) the people. Yanukovich (despite having been elected) was an "undemocratic" leader; Qaddafi was "massacring his own people"; Assad was Massacring his own people"; and the Xtian blacks of southern Sudan were yearning to breathe fee from the Muslim Arabs of northern Sudan.
I find the Republican excuses laughable, but the Dem excuses are downright disgusting. That people believe EITHER of them is scary.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see the pattern in your examples, Signym.
Quote:Putin saved my life, says ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Dems tend to frame their military interventions as "helping"(!) the people. Yanukovich (despite having been elected) was an "undemocratic" leader;
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11692593/Vladimir-Put
in-saved-my-life-says-ousted-Ukrainian-president-Viktor-Yanukovych.html
Quote:Why was Putin so visibly distressed by the killing of Gaddafi?
Qaddafi was "massacring his own people";
www.quora.com/Why-was-Putin-so-visibly-distressed-by-the-killing-of-Ga
ddafi
Quote:Why Putin Is So Committed to Keeping Assad in Power
Assad was Massacring his own people";
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/putins-russia-is-wedded-to-bashar-
al-assad-syria-moscow/
Quote:Sudan president to visit Putin in Russia
and the Xtian blacks of southern Sudan were yearning to breathe fee from the Muslim Arabs of northern Sudan.
www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/sudan-president-to-visit-puti
n-in-russia
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The "pattern" to my examples is the "pattern" established by USA policy which is that under all recent Presidents, whether Dem or Repub, the United States has been knocking over foreign nations like bowling pins in a bowling alley
I noticed a "pattern" in YOUR posts, SECOND.
(1) The only examples of war-mongering that YOU objected to were the examples that occurred under Obama. Well, I hate to tell you this, hon, but "Saint Obama" was just as war-mongery as GWB. That's the truth; deal with it.
(2) When Democratic policy starts to smell, DON'T look at the lies told to get "the people" behind (yet another) war, DON'T acknowledge that Dems have left great smoking swaths of economic and social ruin in their wakes, DON'T admit to failure and corruption .... BLAME PUTIN. Yeah! That's the answer!
That's been the Dem party establishment response for about the past year, and now, with more retro-activity!
Yanno SECOND, YOU should be upset that Dems have caused so much needless death and destruction. I mean, what the hell is wrong with you, that you would object to ANYone looking at the great smoking clusterfucks of instability that Saint Obama created? You DO know that hundreds of thousands of people were killed, yes? That many more were injured, that many women were enslaved, that millions were made refugees, and that the accumulated capital and infrastructure of hundreds of years was destroyed?
Is there something missing from your moral or intellectual code that makes you incapable of even recognizing and acknowledging the pointless pain and suffering that Saint Obama caused?
After all, you spend so much time weeping and wailing about the poor illegal immigrant/ person of color/ insert your victim subgroup of choice here , one would think that you care a great deal about ALL people impacted by USA policy.
But you'll let nothing stand in your way ... not truth, not even-handedness, and CERTAINLY not morals .... of finding one excuse after another for the Dem party.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wasn't that the whole point of everything Obama did and wanted to do? And all Democrats, for that matter? They need to destroy, Bush wanted to Liberate, provide Freedom, support progress.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The "pattern" to my examples is the "pattern" established by USA policy which is that under all recent Presidents, whether Dem or Repub, the United States has been knocking over foreign nations like bowling pins in a bowling alley
I noticed a "pattern" in YOUR posts, SECOND.
(1) The only examples of war-mongering that YOU objected to were the examples that occurred under Obama. Well, I hate to tell you this, hon, but "Saint Obama" was just as war-mongery as GWB. That's the truth; deal with it.
(2) When Democratic policy starts to smell, DON'T look at the lies told to get "the people" behind (yet another) war, DON'T acknowledge that Dems have left great smoking swaths of economic and social ruin in their wakes, DON'T admit to failure and corruption .... BLAME PUTIN. Yeah! That's the answer!
That's been the Dem party establishment response for about the past year, and now, with more retro-activity!
Yanno SECOND, YOU should be upset that Dems have caused so much needless death and destruction. I mean, what the hell is wrong with you, that you would object to ANYone looking at the great smoking clusterfucks of instability that Saint Obama created? You DO know that hundreds of thousands of people were killed, yes? That many more were injured, that many women were enslaved, that millions were made refugees, and that the accumulated capital and infrastructure of hundreds of years was destroyed?
Quote:
Is there something missing from your moral or intellectual code that makes you incapable of even recognizing and acknowledging the pointless pain and suffering that Saint Obama caused?
After all, you spend so much time weeping and wailing about the poor illegal immigrant/ person of color/ insert your victim subgroup of choice here , one would think that you care a great deal about ALL people impacted by USA policy.
But you'll let nothing stand in your way ... not truth, not even-handedness, and CERTAINLY not morals .... of finding one excuse after another for the Dem party.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really?
Wasn't that the whole point of everything Obama did and wanted to do? And all Democrats, for that matter? They need to destroy, Bush wanted to Liberate, provide Freedom, support progress.- JSF
As I recall the reason that was pounded in our heads day and night for invading Afghanistan was "Osama bin Laden ... dead or alive .... smoke 'em out".
And the reason for invading Iraq was "yellowcake ... weapons of mass destruction ... Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat ... mushroom cloud ...
Don't you remember that big show that Colin Powell made for the UN where he tried (and failed) to convince the world that Saddam was actively developing and manufacturing WMD?
Please don't rewrite history.
*****
But let's assume that you're correct, that all GWB wanted to do was bring "freedom" and "prosperity" to Afghanistan and Iraq.
As far as Afghanistan was concerned, the USA approach was sardonically referred to as "bombing Afghanistan even further back into the stone age". There was no real attempt at stabilization or development; that was left to the NGO's which lived on embassy row and freely admitted that much of their money went to bribing local officials.
In Iraq, everything about USA policy, from starting with a bombing campaign which also targeted civilian infrastructure (sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, and electricity generating stations) to Bremer imposing some sort of "privatization" wet-dream onto a foreign, war-torn economy, to de-Ba'athification ... everything that the Bush administration did took Iraq further and further away from both freedom and prosperity.
So in BOTH cases, if leading these nations to freedom and prosperity was the goal, it was an utter failure.
But don't feel TOO bad. The Dems said that THEY wanted to save the people of Ukraine, Libya, Syria, and South Sudan from brutal, murderous dictators. After the tender ministrations of Democratic destabilization, the people of Libya and Syria are overrun with terrorists, all of them are embroiled in civil war, and millions have fled their homelands!
So, are the policymakers and military men serving both Presidents, complete, incompetent boobs? Or was freedom and prosperity never really the goal in the first place?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME