Thought for the Day

[sukumvit boy]

Although I too am alarmed about Russia meddling in our elections I can't help but have a good laugh when I consider that the US has been blatantly meddling in other country's elections all over the world for as long as anyone cares to remember.

[fred41]

Although I too am alarmed about Russia meddling in our elections I can't help but have a good laugh when I consider that the US has been blatantly meddling in other country's elections all over the world for as long as anyone cares to remember.

I'm sure there are folks around the globe saying -"What's good for the goose..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.17552f19041f

That's why we can really only try to fix the holes and move on.

[Stavros]

I think the point about 'Hybrid warfare' was that I am not sure if it is in fact a form of warfare, or just another version of the 'dirty tricks' that were used in the past. The difference may be that social media through the internet is global in a way that dirty tricks in the past were local.
There is a file in the National Archive in London that contains reports from Iran before the coup in 1953 one of which claims that Norman Schwarzkopf arrived in Tehran with a suitcase full of dollars which were used to pay wrestlers to break up demonstrations supporting nationalist leader Mosadeq, and do other things like beat up individuals, smash up National Front offices and create the sense of instability and chaos required to justify a coup. These days attacks can be done online, targeting individuals, creating fake stories, and so on, and may be even more effective if enough people believe the inflammatory material posted, for example the Washington Post has reported that in an online poll, 52% of Republican voters believe Trump won the popular vote, which seems incredible given that Hillary Clinton's margin of victory has been widely reported. It underlines the point that a lot of the time people believe what they want to believe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.642989714550

Thus the danger is that whether you call it 'dirty tricks' or 'hybrid warfare' we get used to extremes of behaviour becoming the norm, whether it is the kind of stuff 'we' used to do to 'banana republics' or 'them' giving it back to us. It might not work in the long term, but it can damage the process, and a lot now rests on the actuality of a Trump administration, which is going to be, shall we say, 'interesting'.

Yet what is also worrying is the complacency that politicians can slump into when they win one election after another, and how this can damage the party in the long term, Labour's collapse in Scotland being but one example. Hillary Clinton was easily a superior candidate to Donald Trump, but I do think the formality of her selection spoke volumes about an atrophy at the core of the party establishment, yet one wonders if there were better, younger candidates with a vision and the qualities needed to attract new as well as old voters. Like the Labour Party in the UK the line-up of leadership candidates in 2015 was depressing in its lack of intellectual quality as well as popular appeal. I can't think of a time when none of the major parties in the UK and the US were so lacking in people to believe in, and when external meddling may have had at least some influence, that puts domestic politics at risk in ways we may not be aware of now. The way in which the out-going Republican administration in North Carolina has used its powers to shape elections in that State also indicates how States Rights can put democracy at risk, but perhaps we also need now to re-define what we mean, or what it is that we want from democracy in the 21st century, or lose it by not doing so.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ican-democrats

[broncofan]

It may be time to stop griping about the election results and begin griping about the day to day stupidity that we will now be bombarded with based on the election.

Is it me or does Donald Trump talk about the Chinese as though their only purpose for existing is to antagonize us? That they have no independent aims that are not related to sabotaging us? This is what the foreign policy of a narcissist would look like. And believe me, I'm not defending the Chinese government on all counts. But it's similar to the difference between those who attack Russia because they're aging cold warriors and those who do so because of Russia's recent record. Trump's issues with the Chinese seem to based on some strange mental schema.

[trish]

He doesn't like China, because he was never able to pronounce the name without looking like someone just shoved a dildo up his ass.

[Stavros]

It may be time to stop griping about the election results and begin griping about the day to day stupidity that we will now be bombarded with based on the election.

Is it me or does Donald Trump talk about the Chinese as though their only purpose for existing is to antagonize us? That they have no independent aims that are not related to sabotaging us? This is what the foreign policy of a narcissist would look like. And believe me, I'm not defending the Chinese government on all counts. But it's similar to the difference between those who attack Russia because they're aging cold warriors and those who do so because of Russia's recent record. Trump's issues with the Chinese seem to based on some strange mental schema.

If you want a different perspective on Trump's difficulties with China, follow the money and Trump's so far unsuccessful attempt to develop 20-30 hotels in China on land owned by the State with companies owned or part-owned by the State, and that's before you start delving into who owes whom how much money...when it comes to a conflict of interest, in the case of Trump and China, you ain't seen nothin' yet...read on-
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/24/503236...resident-elect

[broncofan]

If you want a different perspective on Trump's difficulties with China, follow the money and Trump's so far unsuccessful attempt to develop 20-30 hotels in China on land owned by the State with companies owned or part-owned by the State, and that's before you start delving into who owes whom how much money...when it comes to a conflict of interest, in the case of Trump and China, you ain't seen nothin' yet...read on-
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/24/503236...resident-elect

I don't understand why someone who can afford basically anything they want would be so motivated to expand their empire but then I probably don't understand what motivated him to get so rich to begin with. Thanks for the article, it seems like his financial interests are inseparable from any sense of duty.

Trump is already committing impeachable acts. The relevant constitutional clause is the emoluments clause, barring the purchasing of influence by foreign leaders. It apparently bars even fair market value transactions between the president and that leader. On this, I kind of sympathize with Trump a little bit, since avoiding any transaction, out of his very large holdings would be nearly impossible. It seems unreasonable to make someone with illiquid assets worth billions to divest of all their commercial holdings.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...auguration-day

[broncofan]

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#70eee37790be

This was published in September this year, but you can actually look at what he owns and where. It includes asset by asset breakdown, including debt (not to whom) and ownership stake. One reason he could never divest is that nobody would ever pay him what he thinks his properties are worth.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=broncofan;1738035]I don't understand why someone who can afford basically anything they want would be so motivated to expand their empire but then I probably don't understand what motivated him to get so rich to begin with...
--The rich can never have enough, and maybe at some point it is the power and influence that huge wealth brings that drives on Murdoch, Trump, Slim and so on as well as the private jets, the instant access to Popes and Kings, Sheikhs and Dictators. On the other hand, George Eastman gave away a substantial part of his fortune in charitable work, as did Rockefeller and Henry Wellcome, and to this day the work these foundations does is impressive indeed. Contrast Bill and Melinda Gates with Trump if you want a contemporary comparison. And bear in mind Gates actually created something that has transformed lives, he was not a speculator banking other people's money and using the interest to borrow more.

It seems unreasonable to make someone with illiquid assets worth billions to divest of all their commercial holdings.
--I can't accept this. It is reasonable if the man concerned wants to be the President of the USA, did nobody tell him that he can't have both at the same time? Did he not know himself? Did the Republican Party establishment -Priebus, Ryan, McConnell not point out to Trump what the rules are?

[broncofan]

It seems unreasonable to make someone with illiquid assets worth billions to divest of all their commercial holdings.
--I can't accept this. It is reasonable if the man concerned wants to be the President of the USA, did nobody tell him that he can't have both at the same time? Did he not know himself? Did the Republican Party establishment -Priebus, Ryan, McConnell not point out to Trump what the rules are?

You're right. I agree with everything you say here. Not to be cynical but maybe they told him if he didn't divest it's a Republican Congress that would have to enforce these rules against him.