What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation. — ssu

Perhaps they have little idea what they actually were voting for.

Already, true to form, the headlines are being dominated by ethical scandals and cover-ups sorrounding Trump's picks. A Fox News anchor to run the Pentagon, and a man credibly accused of trafficking underage minors for sex to run Justice Department. And it's two months before the actual Presidency even begins.

What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation. — ssu

Because they don't know how inflation works. They don't know these things, and since they don't know any of it, they're gullible enough to listen to someone speak in a charismatic way and be emotionally charged with passion for something they only think is good because their leader said so.

If he stood there and promoted eating shit is healthy for you I would guarantee some people would do it just because he said so. People are generally absolute morons because it takes effort to not be one, and lazy people won't put in the effort. While education helps some, a lot of people are generally just incapable of overcoming their idiotic state of being. It's too ingrained by other morons around them as an epidemic echo chamber of bad influences.

What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation. — ssu

They don't understand economic policies and their effects. They blame Biden for the inflation of the past few years (not the global supply chain problems that COVID produced), simply because he was in office, so it follows that this can't happen with their hero in office.

.How many will follow Gaetz and not even make it through the beginning of the nomination process? Hegseth seems like a good bet.

.How many will follow Gaetz and not even make it through the beginning of the nomination process? Hegseth seems like a good bet. — Fooloso4

Trump is in a peculiar position as nominating these morons sends a signal to his Maga crowd that he's fighting back against the "deep state", but it will only lead to these positioned people screwing up and show that what Trump is doing is fundamentally incompetent and that everyone is a clown that ruins everything. But if he backs out of it, he's gonna show himself being weak and that the "deep state" is winning, and for a narcissistic fascist like Trump, showing weakness is loss.

So what will the clown do? :chin:

So what will the clown do? :chin: — Christoffer

Blame everyone but himself.

As we’re winding down the one-term presidency, the demented Joe Biden gives Ukraine the go-ahead and the weaponry to fire ballistic missiles into Russia, further escalating the war and leaving a mess for the next administration and the world.

Not a single word from Trump detractors who are no doubt busy doing god’s work psychoanalyzing their folk devil.

Not a single word from Trump or his people either, about the change in policy. What are you expecting Trump to do about Ukraine?

Well, it’s appointment time, and we all know what that means: time to trot out sexual allegations. They say Matt Gaetz was “credibly accused”, but they won’t mention the DOJ never brought charges because the accusers had credibility problems. Of course the opposite is the case: he was incredibly accused.

The 17-year-old at issue in the investigation was also on that trip, though by that time she was already 18 or older, people familiar with the matter have said. She has been a central witness in the investigation, but people familiar with the case said she is one of two people whose testimony has issues that veteran prosecutors feel would not pass muster with a jury.

Greenberg’s credibility would be a significant challenge for any prosecution of Gaetz, in part because one of the crimes Greenberg admitted to was fabricating allegations against a schoolteacher who was running against him to be a tax collector.

https://archive.ph/3HK6F

Oh well, it seemed to have worked. Innocent or guilty, The Machine will chew them up and spit them out.

The silver lining is that Gaetz is out of the game. No doubt he will join the rogues' gallery that will comprise the Trump Regime, but him being out of Congress is a plus.

What scandal will they manufacture?

As we’re winding down the one-term presidency, the demented Joe Biden gives Ukraine the go-ahead and the weaponry to fire ballistic missiles into Russia, further escalating the war and leaving a mess for the next administration and the world. — NOS4A2

Yes, war seems to be ramping up, contrary to Trump's claim that if elected he'd have the war stopped before even taking office, because he knows Putin so well. It appears like Trump's close ties to Russia will be significantly strained this term, by this clash of personalities, as each of these individuals attempts to prove oneself to be the most powerful man in the world. This time around though, Trump will acknowledge no debt owed to Russia for his position. The dog unleased will turn on the master, and the table is set for disaster.

What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation.
— ssu

Perhaps they have little idea what they actually were voting for. — Wayfarer

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in

But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it’s alright, Ma, if I can’t please him — Bob Dylan

I think it's called "spite".

Biden ramped it up for no other reason than politics. No press conference, no nothing. Given the chicken-little approach of anti-trumpism, I fear it’s a sinister ploy to knee-cap the incoming administration for political reasons.

We’ll have to see what Trump does. In any case, whatever they do, it will be an order of magnitude greater in transparency.

Biden ramped it up for no other reason than politics. — NOS4A2

What a surprise. Aren't all wars about politics?

We’ll have to see what Trump does. In any case, whatever they do, it will be an order of magnitude greater in transparency. — NOS4A2

Don't hold your breath on that one. Remember, he said he'd stop the war before taking office. Is it transparent what he is doing now?

I think it's called "spite". — unenlightened

Spite?

I think that Americans were quite unhappy with inflation, that actually was caused by deliberate policies starting with Trump, but effectively finished by Biden. Everything else was given as a reason, except the massive transfer of money to the consumer thanks to the Pandemic.

Brexit actually gives a perfect example of how voters react to bad populist policies. Brexit was said to give frictionless trade and new deals around the world. End rampant immigration. The UK would be finally in charge itself. Above all, it was anti-elitist! Spite, as @unenlightened remarked. And from outside of the country looking at it, it went something like this:

1) First enthusiasm: People won the elites, hooray! Finally somebody is doing something good.
2) Then silence but still waiting for the positive effect: Give some time for it to work!
3) Then denial: Actually, we have gotten something good. It's not so bad.
4) Then amnesia: Look at how awful everything is now. Labor's fault.

I'd bet that if Trump really goes through with kicking out millions from the country, issuing huge sales taxes, sorry, tariffs, prices will go up. Even Elon Musk, who has a brain, understands that it will cause hurt. Well, even if Trump isn't running for re-election, we know his persona.

And let's remember that a populist movement can simply believe that all the bad things have happened because of the evil a) deepstate, b) woke people or c) nasty foreigners. If a political movement transforms to a cult, it doesn't matter if the economy totally collapses. They can blame somebody else. In fact, Trump then can take the punchlines from Maduro, if everything goes to hell in a handbasket:

Supporters of Chávez and Maduro said the problems result from an "economic war" on Venezuela, falling oil prices, international sanctions, and the business elite

While the Venezuelan economy, well:





Of course Venezuela is different. But the policy choices there were populist and horrible. As I said, the impact of millions kicked out of the labor force and out of being consumers, then having trade wars with everybody can be nasty. What is the outcome of +10% tariffs for Haiti? Haiti exports over 80% of all of the meager stuff it produces to the US. Even if the society is on the verge of collapse, will this help? How will then this all show on the US border, especially if (when) other poor Latin American countries have bad economic difficulties?

Sure, but this escalation is a complete flip-flop from Biden’s earlier policy. Americans were lied to again, and here we are closer to nuclear war.

Sure, but this escalation is a complete flip-flop from Biden’s earlier policy. Americans were lied to again, and here we are closer to nuclear war. — NOS4A2

How? I think Biden has backed up Ukraine since the start. He actually made the intel reports public that Russia was going to attack Ukraine. I remember how Biden was ridiculed even in this forum by people who didn't believe that Russia would attack Ukraine. Because why would rational Russia invade Ukraine?

Besides, the Democrat administration knows quite well that Trump would have only threatened to give the weapons system for Ukraine if Russia doesn't budge at all (and let's face it, the ATACMS isn't at all a game changer), hence Ukraine would have been in a weaker position in the peace talks.

What stands as credible critique towards Biden is the idea of giving aid to Ukraine that it wouldn't lose (collapse), but not to win (meaning it gets a victory like Poland got from the Soviets in the 1920's). I'm not sure if this was really what the administration had in mind, but sometimes the micromanagement of what weapon system is given and instructions how to use it makes many feel that this is the underlying if not spoken objective.

And if you are so afraid of WW3, why the fuck then all the hostile talk against China then?

If you want to be a weak dick, then be a weak dick. Then people will understand that you're deterrence doesn't actually mean so much. But simply staying calm shows that you have trust in your the deterrence and that you see through the empty threats of Putin.

Biden has until now resisted Ukraine’s pleas to ease the limits on the use of U.S. ATACMs missiles, and then shifts to allowing their use during the presidential transition in which his regime and party lost. Why would he do that, you think?

Some claim it is because North Korean troops entered the engagement, others mention it is to “Trump-proof” United States Ukraine policy. In any case, it’s a political move, and it looks like a cynical ploy to stifle the incoming administration, or worse.

Hostile talk against China? Do you mean talk of tariffs? I don’t know; peace through strength comes off as a better principle than war through political conniving. It’s no strange wonder that Biden has been involved in that theatre since before it all started to kick off.

Why would he do that, you think? — NOS4A2

I think the option of making "Trump proof" would be close. But again, this is how Biden has worked. First M1 Abrams tanks weren't an option. Too complex! Then few M1 Abrams tanks are given. Then MLRS/HIMARS weren't an option. Then they were. Then NATO states want to give F-16 aircraft. Biden rejects this. Too complex! Then after a long time, Biden accepts these transfers.

This is basically how the White House ran the Vietnam war. Just to give an example, the White House forbid to attack at some time the airbases that North Vietnamese had their few MiG aircraft. Why? Because, the idea went, if the bases were attacked, then North Vietnam might withdraw the to China, where they could be attacked and the threat of China getting involved would increase. Now it should be obvious that the short range MiGs would have a lousy time trying to intercept US fighter bombers from China, hence it would be a great turn for the Americans that the MiGs would be in China. And naturally they didn't a rats ass about what the impact on the crews were on this kind of micromanagement.

This is the absurdity when politicians are let to micromanage warfighting. Yet when you ask the President to answer something, he definitely will then answer these kind of question and then you simply are trapped in the situation where politician just decide on everything and they don't look at the war from the warfighting stance, but from their own political view. Then war becomes "sending messages", not fighting to win the war and defeating the enemy.

This scene from "Thirteen Days" depicts this problem well, even if it perhaps isn't historically accurate. Yet what in the scene McNamara describes as a "new language" between Khrushchev and JFK might have a point here, it really isn't the same issue during the Vietnam war. Yet the tendency for micromanagement of everything continued there too.

Hostile talk against China? Do you mean talk of tariffs? I don’t know; peace through strength comes off as a better principle than war — NOS4A2

Lol. If the US argues that China is a military threat, when it pivots to Asia, opens new bases, brings in new weapon systems like medium range artillery missiles into Phillipines, then that actually is quite hostile from the Chinese point of view. And you don't think 60% tariffs isn't hostile?

Of course, China's claims on the South China Sea are dubious and it put pressure on states like the Phillippines, but it hasn't gone to war with it's neighbors like Russia. Yet if it's peace through strength, then that's quite similar to the reasons for NATO enlargement.

This is the absurdity when politicians are let to micromanage warfighting. Yet when you ask the President to answer something, he definitely will then answer these kind of question and then you simply are trapped in the situation where politician just decide on everything and they don't look at the war from the warfighting stance, but from their own political view. Then war becomes "sending messages", not fighting to win the war and defeating the enemy. — ssu

I don't know about micromanaging, but for politicians to command the military is only proper.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means," as Clausewitz said.

When fighting and winning the war becomes a goal of its own (as is often the type of tunnel vision military leadership suffers from), it is a recipe for disaster.

You end up with geniuses like MacArthur who wanted to nuke China because he was unable to accept the Korean War was going to end in a stalemate.

But again, this is how Biden has worked. First M1 Abrams tanks weren't an option. Too complex! Then few M1 Abrams tanks are given. Then MLRS/HIMARS weren't an option. Then they were. Then NATO states want to give F-16 aircraft. Biden rejects this. Too complex! Then after a long time, Biden accepts these transfers. — ssu

Gradual escalation is more predictable and unlikely to lead to erratic behaviour from the other side, so safer. It's a tactic in and of itself.

I don't know about micromanaging, but for politicians to command the military is only proper.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means," as Clausewitz said. — Tzeentch

For politicians to put down the objectives for the war is proper, to decide to go to war. But politicians shouldn't then become generals themselves and decide what to do. Totalitarian states are perfect examples of where their political leader can have made things worse when not listening to their generals. But when you look at the way Vietnam war was micromanaged by the White House and compare it to WW2, there's a huge difference.

When fighting and winning the war becomes a goal of its own (as is often the type of tunnel vision military leadership suffers from), it is a recipe for disaster. — Tzeentch

And when winning isn't the real objective, then people can believe that the sole objective is just to feed money to the military industrial complex. And hence the turn to defeatism, where no war is ever worth fighting, which also means that there is absolutely no deterrence to keep the peace.

Gradual escalation is more predictable and unlikely to lead to erratic behaviour from the other side, so safer. It's a tactic in and of itself. — Benkei

The erratic behaviour for Russia was to believe that they could have a Blitzkrieg victory over Ukraine because the occupation of Crimea had been so easy and bloodless. Yet from that point on, it hasn't been so erratic. After that Putin has been at least partly successful of hindering the support given to Ukraine by saber rattling. If the US would have given all the weapons it has now given from the start, the situation likely would be different.

Russia's nuclear deterrent has done it's job, NATO and the US aren't directly involved in the fighting. Without the nuclear deterrence I'm sure that NATO countries would have declared a "No Fly Zone" over Ukraine. It would have been the likeliest direct intervention that NATO would have done, just like in the Libyan Civil War. I assume that and the military aid would be it. I see no appetite for NATO countries to send their forces in and in NATO countries like Poland wouldn't go their own way.

The idea that Russia would start a nuclear war with NATO because of NATO countries giving military aid to Ukraine is crazy. We went through a Cold War and arming your opponent never was a reason for WW3. But somehow Putin's threats have worked.

Hilarious. A waste of money and a perversion of justice. A witch hunt, a hoax, a scam on Americans.

With D.C. case dismissed, Trump is no longer under federal indictment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/25/trump-cases-motion-to-dismiss-jack-smith/

What nonsense. These cases will be restarted after his 4 years. It's no use to sentence him if he can pardon himself.

Sure they will. They had years to do it. What’s another four?

The cases have been dismissed "without prejudice". This means they can be reopened in the future. Had they been dismissed "with prejudice", the cases would be dead for all time.

Regardless of this fact, I heard that the statute of limitations may expire before the 4 years is up.