Does America deserve Donald Trump?

With all the news and attention turning to Donald Trump, I wonder aloud does America really want what he has to offer?

For those that have followed my America: schizophrenic empire series of posts, you might not see the connection between Trump for President and America policy overseas.  Or domestic policy.

The facts as I see them are; one, Donald Trump embodies all that is wrong with America in one single person, he is arrogant, petty, brash, anti-intellectual, overconfident and underpowered, vane, narcissistic, cheap, greedy, deluded, and also better than everyone else at "the military".  He doesn't care about other countries unless he can steal their resources or bomb the hell out of them. He is the 1% that treat the rest of society like refuse and exploit every benefit that high priced lawyers can provide. He was given his first fortune and for some reason people still trust him with money.  He is an absurdity within an enigma.

He may wear his beliefs on his sleeve but don't worry he'll get a maid to clean that right up.

But he also embodies what  a large frustrated poorly educated and easily lead portion of the American people aspire to be.  They want to be like him, they want his wealth and they want his problems.  They want America to swagger around and cause problems.  They want to start wars, they hate socialists yet take from the government.

People thought George Bush II was a fluke.  He is no fluke.  Donald Trump is George Bush III with all the sneakiness and without the charisma.  He's what George Bush I wanted as a son.

Two, if the people elect Trump then they deserve every last nightmare he will bring down upon them.

From Obama to Trump would demonstrate complete my argument that America is the schizophrenic empire.
 http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/donald-trump-supporters-new-hampshire/

Blame Clinton for USA Job Losses

Bill Clinton just went on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to point out that China's trade imbalance with the US is unregulated.  This was in reference to the potential trade problems moving jobs with the Trans Pacific Partnership.

The problem with his comment is this:  Bill Clinton was the president that signed the bill for China's "Most Favoured Nation" trading status with the USA.  This is the height of hypocrisy. The all-knowing Bill Clinton is the person that allowed US businesses to abandon US workers.

"China's MFN status was made permanent on December 27, 2001."

So the trade negotiations were done during Clinton's presidency. The liberal left is so smitten by Clinton they've become an apologist for everything he did wrong. He's the left's Ronald Reagan.

So when you consider what kind of president Hillary Clinton would be, remember the legacy.


You can watch the interview here.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/blogs/2014/09/daily-show-bill-clinton-extended

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-interviews/8tw6kt/bill-clinton-extended-interview

The Schizophrenic Empire: Obama lecturing Putin about sovereignty

Obama tried to lecture Putin today about respecting peoples and territorial integrity of other nations in regards to Ukraine.

But you can't lecture Russia when you are bombing Syria: a nation you are not even at war with... yet another example of the Schizophrenic Empire.

Iran doesn't want the bomb for Saudi Arabia.

Iran might assuredly be working to gain a nuclear weapon.  But the point of any nuclear weapon isn't to attack Saudi Arabia.  Or even Israel. Those might be a secondary political objective.

The point of a nuclear weapon for Iran is to stave off any right-wing American inclinations to attack. 

Iranians understand a nuclear war with Israel is a mutually assured destruction scenario. That is off the table as well. They know Israel won't start a nuclear war, so that's a secondary reason.

The fact is Iran was labelled part of the "Axis of Evil" by the right-wing controlled United States of America. That is what Iranian hard liners are concerned about. They are worried about American hard liners...

Iran has watched how American foreign policy changes the second a nation, North Korea for example, enters the nuclear club. Once a nation can inflict massive nuclear fall-out casualties - even if it against its own people alone - it makes them outside military intervention realm. Outside the military option so long as the conflict is non-existential (if Iran could wipe out the USA - all bets are off).

Iranians know that America is a Schizonphrenic Empire - swinging from isolationist to empire and back again. And they know that American politicians can win votes by rattling sabres at nations that are not liked.  They know how easily a "Hawk" can win support taking on a foe.  What better foe than an Evil Axis member? They do the same tactics in house. So why expect different?

Iran want to preserve itself from aggression.   If Iran wanted to become aggressive then when ISIS formed a caliphate they would have formed their own caliphate and denounced ISIS as imposters.

Is America really sure they want the Clinton Dynasty?

I have a new rule, called the Hitchens Rule:

"Lacking evidence to the contrary, assume Hitchens' position is correct."

Hitchens predicted the caliphate: in 2005 - 9 years early.

and Hitchens commented deeply on the Clintons: betrayers of the left.

Be very careful what you wish for America. Voting in a Clinton might be contrued as a schizophrenic episode...

Obama: beats up on allies, whimpers to dictators.

If you weren't up to speed on US foreign relations, one could mistake these people for enemies of the USA:

Stephen Harper	Benjamin Netanyahu	Angela Merkel

Obama is insensitive to their countries' aspirations and need for fair treatment.  He is willing to stand on principle, or not, and disappoint allies because he knows he can. With future consequences that may or may not happen within his presidency, the likelihood of blowback is not clear. The damage from blowback is seen as less harmful?


Instead, one might think these were his key allies and trading partners.

Vladimir Putin	Ali Khamenei	Xi Jinping

Obama has shown more diplomacy and more listening for these enemies of US interests, or least competitors on the global stage,  to pursue an isolationist agenda that includes cow-towing and dithering despite a mandate to apply those same principles he imposes on allies. With future consequences that are more likely and indeed far more consequential this damage might be catastrophic.  

Do the ends justify the means?  Is this diplomacy by damage control?

Example of leading from behind... The Schizophrenic Empire

President Obama's ISIS Evolution

There are lots of false propaganda items perpetuated by Republicans in terms of President Obama's actions, and most of them I ignore.

However, this one does demonstrate how being reactive instead of proactive can make a bad situation worse.

I sympathize with President Obama's strong respect for military people and the sacrifices they have made - sometimes in vain - and his valiant try to protect them. This mandate to avoid conflict is noble, but often vainglorious and moot. The USA has already gotten bloody in Iraq, so no pretense is available but the duty and obligation to do as Colin Powell warned - "we invade, we own their hopes and dreams" which fell on deaf ears.

Look at this video and consider:
Say the president had directed the US Department of Defense to strike that ISIS convoy that crossed into Iraq from Syria to free prisoners near Mosul instead of observe events.

Then ask yourself one thing:

What would the situation look like now, and how much money and more importantly lives, rapes, damage, dreams, terror attacks, beheadings, hopes, and futures would have been saved? How much of the Iraqi army might have stayed instead of fled? How much shorter the border skirmish would be versus an offensive to take one third of Iraq back?

America: The Schizophrenic Empire - Expansionist / Isolationist

Text from President Obama's speech:

"
America, for all that we’ve endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this:

The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.
At this moment – with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, and booming energy production – we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth. It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next fifteen years, and for decades to come.
Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?

Will we approach the world fearful and reactive, dragged into costly conflicts that strain our military and set back our standing? Or will we lead wisely, using all elements of our power to defeat new threats and protect our planet?
Will we allow ourselves to be sorted into factions and turned against one another – or will we recapture the sense of common purpose that has always propelled America forward?

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/full-speech-barack-obama-s-state-of-the-union-address-1.2198275#ixzz3PYTEm5kg"

"

America's state, if I could summarize it as a state space system, oscillates between the two extreme conditions:  Expansionist, then isolationist.

It takes on the demeanor of an empire, pushing troops around and propping up friendly causes up to some theoretical and unseen limit.  Perhaps economic limit. They motivate other peoples to join it and move towards a common cause.

Then, as if by chance, it oscillates back to the other extreme and pulls away: disengages and avoids the very same provocations that caused wars only years earlier.  This leaves allies out in the cold, perhaps at the most inconvenient timing.

The behavior is predictable, but the timing is not.  This schizophrenia gives America's allies great confusion and concern. It is a reason why they can't seem to get ahead for all the blood, and treasure they spill.

America: The Schizophrenic Empire - Part 2

At one moment America aims towards ideals then it forgets and overvalues the expedient. 


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article22012148.ece/BINARY/w620/web-wededcar10co1.jpg

Report on CIA details 'brutal' post-9/11 interrogations

America: The Schizophrenic Empire

Gwynne Dyer  once described the United States of America (USA) as "The Schizophrenic Empire".

For those trying to understand what the USA looks like to the rest of the world this is a very insightful comment.

Bill Maher called his country imperial last week on Real Time with Bill Maher.  He's pretty honest about everything.  How many Americans think they have an empire?

As a nation, it both denies it wants to interfere with others, yet has more bases worldwide than all other countries together.  It denies it has imperial inclinations, but it gets sucked into every regional dispute.   It promotes the cause of peace, yet Department of Defense spends more on its military than the next 8 countries combined:

It has a policy that changes every four years, or every two years, or every time it is politically expedient to do so.  Getting the picture?

So the black box analysis of what the USA thinks, says, and does becomes less about what their long-term philosophical beliefs are but which USA are we talking to at this moment? And which personality will be around for the foreseeable future?