Trump's Russian Collusion

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by Kismet »

old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:39 pm
Kismet wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:52 am A little history for our resident expert on all things - The author, noted British historian Miranda Carter, would run rings around him and his sycophants.

Pay extra attention to her LAST line.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultu ... -an-empire

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BAD-TEMPERED, DISTRACTIBLE DOOFUS RUNS AN EMPIRE?

"One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite. Since Wilhelm was notably indiscreet, people always knew what he was saying behind their backs. Ferdinand had his revenge. After a visit to Germany, in 1909, during which the Kaiser slapped him on the bottom in public and then refused to apologize, Ferdinand awarded a valuable arms contract that had been promised to the Germans to a French company instead.

Not that this deterred the Kaiser. One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect. In 1890, he let lapse a long-standing defensive agreement with Russia—the German Empire’s vast and sometimes threatening eastern neighbor. He judged, wrongly, that Russia was so desperate for German good will that he could keep it dangling. Instead, Russia immediately made an alliance with Germany’s western neighbor and enemy, France. Wilhelm decided he would charm and manipulate Tsar Nicholas II (a “ninny” and a “whimperer,” according to Wilhelm, fit only “to grow turnips”) into abandoning the alliance. In 1897, Nicholas told Wilhelm to get lost; the German-Russian alliance withered.

About a decade ago, I published “George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I,” a book that was, in part, about Kaiser Wilhelm, who is probably best known for being Queen Victoria’s first grandchild and for leading Germany into the First World War. Ever since Donald Trump started campaigning for President, the Kaiser has once again been on my mind—his personal failings, and the global fallout they led to.

Trump’s tweets were what first reminded me of the Kaiser. Wilhelm was a compulsive speechmaker who constantly strayed off script. Even his staff couldn’t stop him, though it tried, distributing copies of speeches to the German press before he’d actually given them. Unfortunately, the Austrian press printed the speeches as they were delivered, and the gaffes and insults soon circulated around Europe. “There is only one person who is master in this empire and I am not going to tolerate any other,” Wilhelm liked to say, even though Germany had a democratic assembly and political parties. (“I’m the only one that matters,” Trump has said.) The Kaiser reserved particular abuse for political parties that voted against his policies. “I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Fatherland,” he said, and he denounced the German Socialist party as a “gang of traitors.” August Bebel, the Socialist party leader, said that every time the Kaiser opened his mouth, the party gained another hundred thousand votes.

When Wilhelm became emperor, in 1888, at twenty-nine years old, he was determined to be seen as tough and powerful. He fetishized the Army, surrounded himself with generals (though, like Trump, he didn’t like listening to them), owned a hundred and twenty military uniforms, and wore little else. He cultivated a special severe facial expression for public occasions and photographs—there are many, as Wilhelm would send out signed photos and portrait busts to anyone who’d have one—and also a heavily waxed, upward-turned moustache that was so famous it had its own name, “Er ist Erreicht!” (It is accomplished!)

In fact, Wilhelm didn’t accomplish very much. The general staff of the German Army agreed that the Kaiser couldn’t “lead three soldiers over a gutter.” He had neither the attention span nor the ability. “Distractions, whether they are little games with his army or navy, travelling or hunting—are everything to him,” a disillusioned former mentor wrote. “He reads very little apart from newspaper cuttings, hardly writes anything himself apart from marginalia on reports and considers those talks best which are quickly over and done with.” The Kaiser’s entourage compiled press cuttings for him, mostly about himself, which he read as obsessively as Trump watches television. A critical story would send him into paroxysms of fury.

During Wilhelm’s reign, the upper echelons of the German government began to unravel into a free-for-all, with officials wrangling against one another. “The most contradictory opinions are now urged at high and all-highest level,” a German diplomat lamented. To add to the confusion, Wilhelm changed his position every five minutes. He was deeply suggestible and would defer to the last person he’d spoken to or cutting he’d read—at least until he’d spoken to the next person. “It is unendurable,” a foreign minister wrote, in 1894. “Today one thing and tomorrow the next and after a few days something completely different.” Wilhelm’s staff and ministers resorted to manipulation, distraction, and flattery to manage him. “In order to get him to accept an idea you must act as if the idea were his,” the Kaiser’s closest friend, Philipp zu Eulenburg, advised his colleagues, adding, “Don’t forget the sugar.” (In “Fire and Fury,” Michael Wolff writes that to get Trump to take an action his White House staff has to persuade him that “he had thought of it himself.”)

More sinisterly, Wilhelm’s patronage of the aggressive, nationalistic right left him surrounded by ministers who held a collective conviction that a European war was inevitable and even desirable. Alfred von Tirpitz, Germany’s Naval chief—who realized at his first meeting with the Kaiser that he did “not live in the real world”—consciously exploited Wilhelm’s envy and rage in order to extract the astronomical sums required to build a German Navy to rival Britain’s, a project that created an arms race and became an intractable block to peace negotiations.

The Kaiser was susceptible but never truly controllable. He asserted his authority unpredictably, as if to prove he was still in charge, staging rogue interventions into his own advisers’ policies and sacking ministers without warning. “You cannot have the faintest idea what I have prevented,” his most obsequious aide, Bernhard von Bülow, complained to a friend, “and how much of my time I must devote to restoring order where our All Highest Master has created chaos.”

The Kaiser’s darkest secret was that every few years—after his meddling and blunders had exposed his incompetence or resulted in a crisis—he would suffer a full-blown collapse. His entourage would scrape him off the floor, and he would retire to one of his palaces, where, prostrate, he would weep and complain that he’d been victimized. After the moaning came the pacing, in uncharacteristic silence. Occasionally he would give way to tears. Gradually he would recalibrate his sense of reality—or unreality—and after a few weeks would bounce up again, as boisterous and obstreperous as ever.

I spent six years writing my book about Wilhelm and his cousins, King George V, of England, and Tsar Nicholas II, and the Kaiser’s egotism and eccentricity made him by far the most entertaining of the three to write about. After a while, though, living with Wilhelm—as you do when you write about another person over a long period—became onerous. It was dispiriting, even oppressive, to spend so much time around someone who never learned, and never changed.

The Kaiser wasn’t singly responsible for the First World War, but his actions and choices helped to bring it on. If international conflict is around the corner, it would seem that you really don’t want a narcissist in control of a global power. Wilhelm’s touchiness, his unpredictability, his need to be acknowledged: these things struck a chord with elements in Germany, which was in a kind of adolescent spasm—quick to perceive slights, excited by the idea of flexing its muscles, filled with a sense of entitlement. At the same time, Wilhelm’s posturing raised tensions in Europe. His clumsy personal diplomacy created suspicion. His alliance with the vitriolic right and his slavish admiration for the Army inched the country closer and closer to war. Once the war was actually upon him, the government and military effectively swept the Kaiser aside. And the gravest damage occurred only after Wilhelm abdicated, in November of 1918. (He spent the rest of his life—he survived until 1941—in central Holland.) The defeated Germany sank into years of depression, resentments sharpened, the toxic lie that Germany had been “robbed” of its rightful victory in the war took hold. The rest, as they say, is history.

I’m not suggesting that Trump is about to start the Third World War. But recent foreign developments—the wild swings with North Korea, the ditching of the Iran nuclear deal, the threat of a trade war with China—suggest upheavals that could quickly grow out of American control. Some of Trump’s critics suppose that these escalating crises might cause him to loosen, or even lose, his grip on the Presidency. The real lesson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, however, may be that Trump’s leaving office might not be the end of the problems he may bring on or exacerbate—it may be only the beginning."
Who are we going to fight in the coming WW III ? Iran ? N Korea ?
What colonial empires are we competing to control ?
Trump wants to divest of foreign entanglements, not acquire more.
The Kaiser did not have to stand for election every 4 years,
...& he didn't even have parity in Dreadnoughts, let alone conventional & nuclear superiority.
Trump's inbred cousins aren't ruling China & Russia.
Brilliant Einstein. :idea: You missed the effing point of the article. No wonder you hate the NYT.....using it would require you to be able to comprehend what was written in it. Can't wait for your VDH response. Two peas in a pod. With this slop, you could get a seat on the Trump defense team along with the other hypocrite losers like Dershowitz and Starr.
calourie
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:52 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by calourie »

old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:12 pm
a fan wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:17 am
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:03 am
a fan wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:21 pm He was duly elected, remember?

You keep thinking alllll the consequences of voting for Trump are going to fall solely on the liberals.

Nope.

And of course, you blame the MSM instead of Trump for this mess. We've now passed the three year mark, and old salt's Xmas miracle of "nothing being Trump's fault" continues.

Neat. If he makes it to four years doing nothing wrong, does he get in to Cooperstown? Not sure how the voting works with that....
He was duly elected, but he had no shadow govt, waiting in the wings & think tanks, ready to re-enter through the revolving door.

Given the strength of The Resistance, from all sides, from without & within, it's remarkable that Trump has lasted this long.

If he should somehow survive & win re-election, will he be allowed to serve another term ? Doubtful.
The Deep State & MSM won't tolerate it. Schiff's already telling us not to trust the 2020 election.
If it was any other poster, I'd replace the word 'Trump' the word 'Obama", and repost this as "fixed it". But I respect you, and your polite request....so instead I'll simply say, that's what they said about Obama. And Bush, for that matter.

And if Biden gets elected? Same thing will happen to him. McConnell will refuse to work with him, and the four year Ukraine investigation will start in the Senate.

Meanwhile, nothing will get done, and we'll be back here talking about all the stuff that didn't get done while "Mom and Dad" pretend to fight....and the 1% will have an even larger share of our wealth.
You may consider extending that same courtesy to all posters & not mess with the words they post.
It might help reduce the rancor in these discussions.

My point was the availability of a shadow govt of experienced DC hands. Biden will be able to bring back an entire govt of Obama alums, to augment Obama holdovers still serving within the Deep State. Trump has no such talent pool from which to draw. His foreign policy is as much an anathema to NeoCons & NeverTrumper (R)'s as it is to the (D)'s. Bolton & the leakers are Exhibit A. On foreign policy & national security issues, Biden will get 60 Senate votes, even if the (R)'s still control. The sequester budget caps are gone, the Russia Hawks will be ascendant & the (D)'s won't be able to walk back the Red Scare they've been hyping since 2016.
I will say that Old Salt has been remarkably consistent all along in ascribing most of our current political ills to the "deep state", a convenient bogeyman to say the least when defending a POTUS who in many regards comes across as utterly morally bankrupt. I might add that consistency has occasionally been cited as the hob-goblin of small minds.
Last edited by calourie on Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
a fan
Posts: 19547
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by a fan »

old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:12 pm You may consider extending that same courtesy to all posters & not mess with the words they post.
It might help reduce the rancor in these discussions.
Yep. And maybe not call other poster crybabies, call them hysterical, or any time anyone says anything bad about Trump...don't come back by gaslighting them with the stupid, petty "TDS".

As I was telling tech------ all I do is return fire. You boys want to be cordial, and don't like it when things get heated? Don't do it yourself. You'll find that others will follow suit. Yours truly, in particular.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18819
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by old salt »

Kismet wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:50 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:39 pm
Kismet wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:52 am A little history for our resident expert on all things - The author, noted British historian Miranda Carter, would run rings around him and his sycophants.

Pay extra attention to her LAST line.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultu ... -an-empire

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BAD-TEMPERED, DISTRACTIBLE DOOFUS RUNS AN EMPIRE?

"One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite. Since Wilhelm was notably indiscreet, people always knew what he was saying behind their backs. Ferdinand had his revenge. After a visit to Germany, in 1909, during which the Kaiser slapped him on the bottom in public and then refused to apologize, Ferdinand awarded a valuable arms contract that had been promised to the Germans to a French company instead.

Not that this deterred the Kaiser. One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect. In 1890, he let lapse a long-standing defensive agreement with Russia—the German Empire’s vast and sometimes threatening eastern neighbor. He judged, wrongly, that Russia was so desperate for German good will that he could keep it dangling. Instead, Russia immediately made an alliance with Germany’s western neighbor and enemy, France. Wilhelm decided he would charm and manipulate Tsar Nicholas II (a “ninny” and a “whimperer,” according to Wilhelm, fit only “to grow turnips”) into abandoning the alliance. In 1897, Nicholas told Wilhelm to get lost; the German-Russian alliance withered.

About a decade ago, I published “George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I,” a book that was, in part, about Kaiser Wilhelm, who is probably best known for being Queen Victoria’s first grandchild and for leading Germany into the First World War. Ever since Donald Trump started campaigning for President, the Kaiser has once again been on my mind—his personal failings, and the global fallout they led to.

Trump’s tweets were what first reminded me of the Kaiser. Wilhelm was a compulsive speechmaker who constantly strayed off script. Even his staff couldn’t stop him, though it tried, distributing copies of speeches to the German press before he’d actually given them. Unfortunately, the Austrian press printed the speeches as they were delivered, and the gaffes and insults soon circulated around Europe. “There is only one person who is master in this empire and I am not going to tolerate any other,” Wilhelm liked to say, even though Germany had a democratic assembly and political parties. (“I’m the only one that matters,” Trump has said.) The Kaiser reserved particular abuse for political parties that voted against his policies. “I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Fatherland,” he said, and he denounced the German Socialist party as a “gang of traitors.” August Bebel, the Socialist party leader, said that every time the Kaiser opened his mouth, the party gained another hundred thousand votes.

When Wilhelm became emperor, in 1888, at twenty-nine years old, he was determined to be seen as tough and powerful. He fetishized the Army, surrounded himself with generals (though, like Trump, he didn’t like listening to them), owned a hundred and twenty military uniforms, and wore little else. He cultivated a special severe facial expression for public occasions and photographs—there are many, as Wilhelm would send out signed photos and portrait busts to anyone who’d have one—and also a heavily waxed, upward-turned moustache that was so famous it had its own name, “Er ist Erreicht!” (It is accomplished!)

In fact, Wilhelm didn’t accomplish very much. The general staff of the German Army agreed that the Kaiser couldn’t “lead three soldiers over a gutter.” He had neither the attention span nor the ability. “Distractions, whether they are little games with his army or navy, travelling or hunting—are everything to him,” a disillusioned former mentor wrote. “He reads very little apart from newspaper cuttings, hardly writes anything himself apart from marginalia on reports and considers those talks best which are quickly over and done with.” The Kaiser’s entourage compiled press cuttings for him, mostly about himself, which he read as obsessively as Trump watches television. A critical story would send him into paroxysms of fury.

During Wilhelm’s reign, the upper echelons of the German government began to unravel into a free-for-all, with officials wrangling against one another. “The most contradictory opinions are now urged at high and all-highest level,” a German diplomat lamented. To add to the confusion, Wilhelm changed his position every five minutes. He was deeply suggestible and would defer to the last person he’d spoken to or cutting he’d read—at least until he’d spoken to the next person. “It is unendurable,” a foreign minister wrote, in 1894. “Today one thing and tomorrow the next and after a few days something completely different.” Wilhelm’s staff and ministers resorted to manipulation, distraction, and flattery to manage him. “In order to get him to accept an idea you must act as if the idea were his,” the Kaiser’s closest friend, Philipp zu Eulenburg, advised his colleagues, adding, “Don’t forget the sugar.” (In “Fire and Fury,” Michael Wolff writes that to get Trump to take an action his White House staff has to persuade him that “he had thought of it himself.”)

More sinisterly, Wilhelm’s patronage of the aggressive, nationalistic right left him surrounded by ministers who held a collective conviction that a European war was inevitable and even desirable. Alfred von Tirpitz, Germany’s Naval chief—who realized at his first meeting with the Kaiser that he did “not live in the real world”—consciously exploited Wilhelm’s envy and rage in order to extract the astronomical sums required to build a German Navy to rival Britain’s, a project that created an arms race and became an intractable block to peace negotiations.

The Kaiser was susceptible but never truly controllable. He asserted his authority unpredictably, as if to prove he was still in charge, staging rogue interventions into his own advisers’ policies and sacking ministers without warning. “You cannot have the faintest idea what I have prevented,” his most obsequious aide, Bernhard von Bülow, complained to a friend, “and how much of my time I must devote to restoring order where our All Highest Master has created chaos.”

The Kaiser’s darkest secret was that every few years—after his meddling and blunders had exposed his incompetence or resulted in a crisis—he would suffer a full-blown collapse. His entourage would scrape him off the floor, and he would retire to one of his palaces, where, prostrate, he would weep and complain that he’d been victimized. After the moaning came the pacing, in uncharacteristic silence. Occasionally he would give way to tears. Gradually he would recalibrate his sense of reality—or unreality—and after a few weeks would bounce up again, as boisterous and obstreperous as ever.

I spent six years writing my book about Wilhelm and his cousins, King George V, of England, and Tsar Nicholas II, and the Kaiser’s egotism and eccentricity made him by far the most entertaining of the three to write about. After a while, though, living with Wilhelm—as you do when you write about another person over a long period—became onerous. It was dispiriting, even oppressive, to spend so much time around someone who never learned, and never changed.

The Kaiser wasn’t singly responsible for the First World War, but his actions and choices helped to bring it on. If international conflict is around the corner, it would seem that you really don’t want a narcissist in control of a global power. Wilhelm’s touchiness, his unpredictability, his need to be acknowledged: these things struck a chord with elements in Germany, which was in a kind of adolescent spasm—quick to perceive slights, excited by the idea of flexing its muscles, filled with a sense of entitlement. At the same time, Wilhelm’s posturing raised tensions in Europe. His clumsy personal diplomacy created suspicion. His alliance with the vitriolic right and his slavish admiration for the Army inched the country closer and closer to war. Once the war was actually upon him, the government and military effectively swept the Kaiser aside. And the gravest damage occurred only after Wilhelm abdicated, in November of 1918. (He spent the rest of his life—he survived until 1941—in central Holland.) The defeated Germany sank into years of depression, resentments sharpened, the toxic lie that Germany had been “robbed” of its rightful victory in the war took hold. The rest, as they say, is history.

I’m not suggesting that Trump is about to start the Third World War. But recent foreign developments—the wild swings with North Korea, the ditching of the Iran nuclear deal, the threat of a trade war with China—suggest upheavals that could quickly grow out of American control. Some of Trump’s critics suppose that these escalating crises might cause him to loosen, or even lose, his grip on the Presidency. The real lesson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, however, may be that Trump’s leaving office might not be the end of the problems he may bring on or exacerbate—it may be only the beginning."
Who are we going to fight in the coming WW III ? Iran ? N Korea ?
What colonial empires are we competing to control ?
Trump wants to divest of foreign entanglements, not acquire more.
The Kaiser did not have to stand for election every 4 years,
...& he didn't even have parity in Dreadnoughts, let alone conventional & nuclear superiority.
Trump's inbred cousins aren't ruling China & Russia.
Brilliant Einstein. :idea: You missed the effing point of the article. No wonder you hate the NYT.....using it would require you to be able to comprehend what was written in it. Can't wait for your VDH response. Two peas in a pod. With this slop, you could get a seat on the Trump defense team along with the other hypocrite losers like Dershowitz and Starr.
Like Miranda, you dodge the question about who we'll be fighting in the coming WW III which Trump starts & his successor will have to finish ?
If Trump's not re-elected, his (D) successor can slide right back into the JCPOA & collect his/her Nobel Peace Prize.
We're no closer to conflict with N Korea than we were 3 years ago. At least we're still talking rather than testing.
Trump's doing more to help Ukraine than the entire EU combined, while garrisoning E Europe on NATO's behalf,
as Vlad packs his golden parachute. Maybe he & Trump will start a joint venture when they both leave office in 2024.
China's got their hands full with Hong Kong, retraining millions of their restive Muslim citizens & closing cities to contain their latest pandemic.
The CIA's bio-op to infect snakes & bats is working.
foreverlax
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by foreverlax »

old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:16 pm
Kismet wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:50 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:39 pm
Kismet wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:52 am A little history for our resident expert on all things - The author, noted British historian Miranda Carter, would run rings around him and his sycophants.

Pay extra attention to her LAST line.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultu ... -an-empire

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BAD-TEMPERED, DISTRACTIBLE DOOFUS RUNS AN EMPIRE?

"One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite. Since Wilhelm was notably indiscreet, people always knew what he was saying behind their backs. Ferdinand had his revenge. After a visit to Germany, in 1909, during which the Kaiser slapped him on the bottom in public and then refused to apologize, Ferdinand awarded a valuable arms contract that had been promised to the Germans to a French company instead.

Not that this deterred the Kaiser. One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect. In 1890, he let lapse a long-standing defensive agreement with Russia—the German Empire’s vast and sometimes threatening eastern neighbor. He judged, wrongly, that Russia was so desperate for German good will that he could keep it dangling. Instead, Russia immediately made an alliance with Germany’s western neighbor and enemy, France. Wilhelm decided he would charm and manipulate Tsar Nicholas II (a “ninny” and a “whimperer,” according to Wilhelm, fit only “to grow turnips”) into abandoning the alliance. In 1897, Nicholas told Wilhelm to get lost; the German-Russian alliance withered.

About a decade ago, I published “George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I,” a book that was, in part, about Kaiser Wilhelm, who is probably best known for being Queen Victoria’s first grandchild and for leading Germany into the First World War. Ever since Donald Trump started campaigning for President, the Kaiser has once again been on my mind—his personal failings, and the global fallout they led to.

Trump’s tweets were what first reminded me of the Kaiser. Wilhelm was a compulsive speechmaker who constantly strayed off script. Even his staff couldn’t stop him, though it tried, distributing copies of speeches to the German press before he’d actually given them. Unfortunately, the Austrian press printed the speeches as they were delivered, and the gaffes and insults soon circulated around Europe. “There is only one person who is master in this empire and I am not going to tolerate any other,” Wilhelm liked to say, even though Germany had a democratic assembly and political parties. (“I’m the only one that matters,” Trump has said.) The Kaiser reserved particular abuse for political parties that voted against his policies. “I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Fatherland,” he said, and he denounced the German Socialist party as a “gang of traitors.” August Bebel, the Socialist party leader, said that every time the Kaiser opened his mouth, the party gained another hundred thousand votes.

When Wilhelm became emperor, in 1888, at twenty-nine years old, he was determined to be seen as tough and powerful. He fetishized the Army, surrounded himself with generals (though, like Trump, he didn’t like listening to them), owned a hundred and twenty military uniforms, and wore little else. He cultivated a special severe facial expression for public occasions and photographs—there are many, as Wilhelm would send out signed photos and portrait busts to anyone who’d have one—and also a heavily waxed, upward-turned moustache that was so famous it had its own name, “Er ist Erreicht!” (It is accomplished!)

In fact, Wilhelm didn’t accomplish very much. The general staff of the German Army agreed that the Kaiser couldn’t “lead three soldiers over a gutter.” He had neither the attention span nor the ability. “Distractions, whether they are little games with his army or navy, travelling or hunting—are everything to him,” a disillusioned former mentor wrote. “He reads very little apart from newspaper cuttings, hardly writes anything himself apart from marginalia on reports and considers those talks best which are quickly over and done with.” The Kaiser’s entourage compiled press cuttings for him, mostly about himself, which he read as obsessively as Trump watches television. A critical story would send him into paroxysms of fury.

During Wilhelm’s reign, the upper echelons of the German government began to unravel into a free-for-all, with officials wrangling against one another. “The most contradictory opinions are now urged at high and all-highest level,” a German diplomat lamented. To add to the confusion, Wilhelm changed his position every five minutes. He was deeply suggestible and would defer to the last person he’d spoken to or cutting he’d read—at least until he’d spoken to the next person. “It is unendurable,” a foreign minister wrote, in 1894. “Today one thing and tomorrow the next and after a few days something completely different.” Wilhelm’s staff and ministers resorted to manipulation, distraction, and flattery to manage him. “In order to get him to accept an idea you must act as if the idea were his,” the Kaiser’s closest friend, Philipp zu Eulenburg, advised his colleagues, adding, “Don’t forget the sugar.” (In “Fire and Fury,” Michael Wolff writes that to get Trump to take an action his White House staff has to persuade him that “he had thought of it himself.”)

More sinisterly, Wilhelm’s patronage of the aggressive, nationalistic right left him surrounded by ministers who held a collective conviction that a European war was inevitable and even desirable. Alfred von Tirpitz, Germany’s Naval chief—who realized at his first meeting with the Kaiser that he did “not live in the real world”—consciously exploited Wilhelm’s envy and rage in order to extract the astronomical sums required to build a German Navy to rival Britain’s, a project that created an arms race and became an intractable block to peace negotiations.

The Kaiser was susceptible but never truly controllable. He asserted his authority unpredictably, as if to prove he was still in charge, staging rogue interventions into his own advisers’ policies and sacking ministers without warning. “You cannot have the faintest idea what I have prevented,” his most obsequious aide, Bernhard von Bülow, complained to a friend, “and how much of my time I must devote to restoring order where our All Highest Master has created chaos.”

The Kaiser’s darkest secret was that every few years—after his meddling and blunders had exposed his incompetence or resulted in a crisis—he would suffer a full-blown collapse. His entourage would scrape him off the floor, and he would retire to one of his palaces, where, prostrate, he would weep and complain that he’d been victimized. After the moaning came the pacing, in uncharacteristic silence. Occasionally he would give way to tears. Gradually he would recalibrate his sense of reality—or unreality—and after a few weeks would bounce up again, as boisterous and obstreperous as ever.

I spent six years writing my book about Wilhelm and his cousins, King George V, of England, and Tsar Nicholas II, and the Kaiser’s egotism and eccentricity made him by far the most entertaining of the three to write about. After a while, though, living with Wilhelm—as you do when you write about another person over a long period—became onerous. It was dispiriting, even oppressive, to spend so much time around someone who never learned, and never changed.

The Kaiser wasn’t singly responsible for the First World War, but his actions and choices helped to bring it on. If international conflict is around the corner, it would seem that you really don’t want a narcissist in control of a global power. Wilhelm’s touchiness, his unpredictability, his need to be acknowledged: these things struck a chord with elements in Germany, which was in a kind of adolescent spasm—quick to perceive slights, excited by the idea of flexing its muscles, filled with a sense of entitlement. At the same time, Wilhelm’s posturing raised tensions in Europe. His clumsy personal diplomacy created suspicion. His alliance with the vitriolic right and his slavish admiration for the Army inched the country closer and closer to war. Once the war was actually upon him, the government and military effectively swept the Kaiser aside. And the gravest damage occurred only after Wilhelm abdicated, in November of 1918. (He spent the rest of his life—he survived until 1941—in central Holland.) The defeated Germany sank into years of depression, resentments sharpened, the toxic lie that Germany had been “robbed” of its rightful victory in the war took hold. The rest, as they say, is history.

I’m not suggesting that Trump is about to start the Third World War. But recent foreign developments—the wild swings with North Korea, the ditching of the Iran nuclear deal, the threat of a trade war with China—suggest upheavals that could quickly grow out of American control. Some of Trump’s critics suppose that these escalating crises might cause him to loosen, or even lose, his grip on the Presidency. The real lesson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, however, may be that Trump’s leaving office might not be the end of the problems he may bring on or exacerbate—it may be only the beginning."
Who are we going to fight in the coming WW III ? Iran ? N Korea ?
What colonial empires are we competing to control ?
Trump wants to divest of foreign entanglements, not acquire more.
The Kaiser did not have to stand for election every 4 years,
...& he didn't even have parity in Dreadnoughts, let alone conventional & nuclear superiority.
Trump's inbred cousins aren't ruling China & Russia.
Brilliant Einstein. :idea: You missed the effing point of the article. No wonder you hate the NYT.....using it would require you to be able to comprehend what was written in it. Can't wait for your VDH response. Two peas in a pod. With this slop, you could get a seat on the Trump defense team along with the other hypocrite losers like Dershowitz and Starr.
Like Miranda, you dodge the question about who we'll be fighting in the coming WW III which Trump starts & his successor will have to finish ?
If Trump's not re-elected, his (D) successor can slide right back into the JCPOA & collect his/her Nobel Peace Prize.
We're no closer to conflict with N Korea than we were 3 years ago. At least we're still talking rather than testing.
That would be your opinion...unless you have some factual links.
Trump's doing more to help Ukraine than the entire EU combined, while garrisoning E Europe on NATO's behalf,
That has been proven to be inaccurate. They have given more money than the US.
as Vlad packs his golden parachute. Maybe he & Trump will start a joint venture when they both leave office in 2024.
China's got their hands full with Hong Kong, retraining millions of their restive Muslim citizens & closing cities to contain their latest pandemic.
The CIA's bio-op to infect snakes & bats is working.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18819
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by old salt »

calourie wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:06 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:12 pm
a fan wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:17 am
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:03 am
a fan wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:21 pm He was duly elected, remember?

You keep thinking alllll the consequences of voting for Trump are going to fall solely on the liberals.

Nope.

And of course, you blame the MSM instead of Trump for this mess. We've now passed the three year mark, and old salt's Xmas miracle of "nothing being Trump's fault" continues.

Neat. If he makes it to four years doing nothing wrong, does he get in to Cooperstown? Not sure how the voting works with that....
He was duly elected, but he had no shadow govt, waiting in the wings & think tanks, ready to re-enter through the revolving door.

Given the strength of The Resistance, from all sides, from without & within, it's remarkable that Trump has lasted this long.

If he should somehow survive & win re-election, will he be allowed to serve another term ? Doubtful.
The Deep State & MSM won't tolerate it. Schiff's already telling us not to trust the 2020 election.
If it was any other poster, I'd replace the word 'Trump' the word 'Obama", and repost this as "fixed it". But I respect you, and your polite request....so instead I'll simply say, that's what they said about Obama. And Bush, for that matter.

And if Biden gets elected? Same thing will happen to him. McConnell will refuse to work with him, and the four year Ukraine investigation will start in the Senate.

Meanwhile, nothing will get done, and we'll be back here talking about all the stuff that didn't get done while "Mom and Dad" pretend to fight....and the 1% will have an even larger share of our wealth.
You may consider extending that same courtesy to all posters & not mess with the words they post.
It might help reduce the rancor in these discussions.

My point was the availability of a shadow govt of experienced DC hands. Biden will be able to bring back an entire govt of Obama alums, to augment Obama holdovers still serving within the Deep State. Trump has no such talent pool from which to draw. His foreign policy is as much an anathema to NeoCons & NeverTrumper (R)'s as it is to the (D)'s. Bolton & the leakers are Exhibit A. On foreign policy & national security issues, Biden will get 60 Senate votes, even if the (R)'s still control. The sequester budget caps are gone, the Russia Hawks will be ascendant & the (D)'s won't be able to walk back the Red Scare they've been hyping since 2016.
I will say that Old Salt has been remarkably consistent all along in ascribing most of our current political ills to the "deep state", a convenient bogeyman to say the least when defending a POTUS who in many regards comes across as utterly morally bankrupt. I might add that consistency has occasionally been cited as the hob-goblin of small minds.
...& it keeps proving to be true, with each successive leak (even when masked as a whistleblower).
calourie
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:52 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by calourie »

voila'
Bandito
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:31 pm
Location: Hanging out with Elon Musk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by Bandito »

It’s over for you Dems. You’re toast in 2020. Try putting forth a good candidate for once instead of weaponizing a sham of an impeachment. Democrats. The party of slavery and racism in their finest hour will meet its demise in 2020
Farfromgeneva is a sissy soy boy
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18819
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by old salt »

foreverlax wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:19 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:16 pm
Kismet wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:50 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:39 pm
Kismet wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:52 am A little history for our resident expert on all things - The author, noted British historian Miranda Carter, would run rings around him and his sycophants.

Pay extra attention to her LAST line.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultu ... -an-empire

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BAD-TEMPERED, DISTRACTIBLE DOOFUS RUNS AN EMPIRE?

"One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite. Since Wilhelm was notably indiscreet, people always knew what he was saying behind their backs. Ferdinand had his revenge. After a visit to Germany, in 1909, during which the Kaiser slapped him on the bottom in public and then refused to apologize, Ferdinand awarded a valuable arms contract that had been promised to the Germans to a French company instead.

Not that this deterred the Kaiser. One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect. In 1890, he let lapse a long-standing defensive agreement with Russia—the German Empire’s vast and sometimes threatening eastern neighbor. He judged, wrongly, that Russia was so desperate for German good will that he could keep it dangling. Instead, Russia immediately made an alliance with Germany’s western neighbor and enemy, France. Wilhelm decided he would charm and manipulate Tsar Nicholas II (a “ninny” and a “whimperer,” according to Wilhelm, fit only “to grow turnips”) into abandoning the alliance. In 1897, Nicholas told Wilhelm to get lost; the German-Russian alliance withered.

About a decade ago, I published “George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I,” a book that was, in part, about Kaiser Wilhelm, who is probably best known for being Queen Victoria’s first grandchild and for leading Germany into the First World War. Ever since Donald Trump started campaigning for President, the Kaiser has once again been on my mind—his personal failings, and the global fallout they led to.

Trump’s tweets were what first reminded me of the Kaiser. Wilhelm was a compulsive speechmaker who constantly strayed off script. Even his staff couldn’t stop him, though it tried, distributing copies of speeches to the German press before he’d actually given them. Unfortunately, the Austrian press printed the speeches as they were delivered, and the gaffes and insults soon circulated around Europe. “There is only one person who is master in this empire and I am not going to tolerate any other,” Wilhelm liked to say, even though Germany had a democratic assembly and political parties. (“I’m the only one that matters,” Trump has said.) The Kaiser reserved particular abuse for political parties that voted against his policies. “I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Fatherland,” he said, and he denounced the German Socialist party as a “gang of traitors.” August Bebel, the Socialist party leader, said that every time the Kaiser opened his mouth, the party gained another hundred thousand votes.

When Wilhelm became emperor, in 1888, at twenty-nine years old, he was determined to be seen as tough and powerful. He fetishized the Army, surrounded himself with generals (though, like Trump, he didn’t like listening to them), owned a hundred and twenty military uniforms, and wore little else. He cultivated a special severe facial expression for public occasions and photographs—there are many, as Wilhelm would send out signed photos and portrait busts to anyone who’d have one—and also a heavily waxed, upward-turned moustache that was so famous it had its own name, “Er ist Erreicht!” (It is accomplished!)

In fact, Wilhelm didn’t accomplish very much. The general staff of the German Army agreed that the Kaiser couldn’t “lead three soldiers over a gutter.” He had neither the attention span nor the ability. “Distractions, whether they are little games with his army or navy, travelling or hunting—are everything to him,” a disillusioned former mentor wrote. “He reads very little apart from newspaper cuttings, hardly writes anything himself apart from marginalia on reports and considers those talks best which are quickly over and done with.” The Kaiser’s entourage compiled press cuttings for him, mostly about himself, which he read as obsessively as Trump watches television. A critical story would send him into paroxysms of fury.

During Wilhelm’s reign, the upper echelons of the German government began to unravel into a free-for-all, with officials wrangling against one another. “The most contradictory opinions are now urged at high and all-highest level,” a German diplomat lamented. To add to the confusion, Wilhelm changed his position every five minutes. He was deeply suggestible and would defer to the last person he’d spoken to or cutting he’d read—at least until he’d spoken to the next person. “It is unendurable,” a foreign minister wrote, in 1894. “Today one thing and tomorrow the next and after a few days something completely different.” Wilhelm’s staff and ministers resorted to manipulation, distraction, and flattery to manage him. “In order to get him to accept an idea you must act as if the idea were his,” the Kaiser’s closest friend, Philipp zu Eulenburg, advised his colleagues, adding, “Don’t forget the sugar.” (In “Fire and Fury,” Michael Wolff writes that to get Trump to take an action his White House staff has to persuade him that “he had thought of it himself.”)

More sinisterly, Wilhelm’s patronage of the aggressive, nationalistic right left him surrounded by ministers who held a collective conviction that a European war was inevitable and even desirable. Alfred von Tirpitz, Germany’s Naval chief—who realized at his first meeting with the Kaiser that he did “not live in the real world”—consciously exploited Wilhelm’s envy and rage in order to extract the astronomical sums required to build a German Navy to rival Britain’s, a project that created an arms race and became an intractable block to peace negotiations.

The Kaiser was susceptible but never truly controllable. He asserted his authority unpredictably, as if to prove he was still in charge, staging rogue interventions into his own advisers’ policies and sacking ministers without warning. “You cannot have the faintest idea what I have prevented,” his most obsequious aide, Bernhard von Bülow, complained to a friend, “and how much of my time I must devote to restoring order where our All Highest Master has created chaos.”

The Kaiser’s darkest secret was that every few years—after his meddling and blunders had exposed his incompetence or resulted in a crisis—he would suffer a full-blown collapse. His entourage would scrape him off the floor, and he would retire to one of his palaces, where, prostrate, he would weep and complain that he’d been victimized. After the moaning came the pacing, in uncharacteristic silence. Occasionally he would give way to tears. Gradually he would recalibrate his sense of reality—or unreality—and after a few weeks would bounce up again, as boisterous and obstreperous as ever.

I spent six years writing my book about Wilhelm and his cousins, King George V, of England, and Tsar Nicholas II, and the Kaiser’s egotism and eccentricity made him by far the most entertaining of the three to write about. After a while, though, living with Wilhelm—as you do when you write about another person over a long period—became onerous. It was dispiriting, even oppressive, to spend so much time around someone who never learned, and never changed.

The Kaiser wasn’t singly responsible for the First World War, but his actions and choices helped to bring it on. If international conflict is around the corner, it would seem that you really don’t want a narcissist in control of a global power. Wilhelm’s touchiness, his unpredictability, his need to be acknowledged: these things struck a chord with elements in Germany, which was in a kind of adolescent spasm—quick to perceive slights, excited by the idea of flexing its muscles, filled with a sense of entitlement. At the same time, Wilhelm’s posturing raised tensions in Europe. His clumsy personal diplomacy created suspicion. His alliance with the vitriolic right and his slavish admiration for the Army inched the country closer and closer to war. Once the war was actually upon him, the government and military effectively swept the Kaiser aside. And the gravest damage occurred only after Wilhelm abdicated, in November of 1918. (He spent the rest of his life—he survived until 1941—in central Holland.) The defeated Germany sank into years of depression, resentments sharpened, the toxic lie that Germany had been “robbed” of its rightful victory in the war took hold. The rest, as they say, is history.

I’m not suggesting that Trump is about to start the Third World War. But recent foreign developments—the wild swings with North Korea, the ditching of the Iran nuclear deal, the threat of a trade war with China—suggest upheavals that could quickly grow out of American control. Some of Trump’s critics suppose that these escalating crises might cause him to loosen, or even lose, his grip on the Presidency. The real lesson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, however, may be that Trump’s leaving office might not be the end of the problems he may bring on or exacerbate—it may be only the beginning."
Who are we going to fight in the coming WW III ? Iran ? N Korea ?
What colonial empires are we competing to control ?
Trump wants to divest of foreign entanglements, not acquire more.
The Kaiser did not have to stand for election every 4 years,
...& he didn't even have parity in Dreadnoughts, let alone conventional & nuclear superiority.
Trump's inbred cousins aren't ruling China & Russia.
Brilliant Einstein. :idea: You missed the effing point of the article. No wonder you hate the NYT.....using it would require you to be able to comprehend what was written in it. Can't wait for your VDH response. Two peas in a pod. With this slop, you could get a seat on the Trump defense team along with the other hypocrite losers like Dershowitz and Starr.
Like Miranda, you dodge the question about who we'll be fighting in the coming WW III which Trump starts & his successor will have to finish ?
If Trump's not re-elected, his (D) successor can slide right back into the JCPOA & collect his/her Nobel Peace Prize.
We're no closer to conflict with N Korea than we were 3 years ago. At least we're still talking rather than testing.
That would be your opinion...unless you have some factual links.
As is all original content in this discussion forum, get over it. Still no nucs or ICBMs tested.
Trump's doing more to help Ukraine than the entire EU combined, while garrisoning E Europe on NATO's behalf,
That has been proven to be inaccurate. They have given more money than the US.
Yeah. It's all in oligarch's offshore bank accounts in Cyprus. Specific, lethal military aid is what Ukraine needed. It's harder to launder Javelins & sniper rifles.
as Vlad packs his golden parachute. Maybe he & Trump will start a joint venture when they both leave office in 2024.
China's got their hands full with Hong Kong, retraining millions of their restive Muslim citizens & closing cities to contain their latest pandemic.
The CIA's bio-op to infect snakes & bats is working.
foreverlax
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by foreverlax »

old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:26 pm
foreverlax wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:19 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:16 pm Like Miranda, you dodge the question about who we'll be fighting in the coming WW III which Trump starts & his successor will have to finish ?
If Trump's not re-elected, his (D) successor can slide right back into the JCPOA & collect his/her Nobel Peace Prize.
We're no closer to conflict with N Korea than we were 3 years ago. At least we're still talking rather than testing.
That would be your opinion...unless you have some factual links.
As is all original content in this discussion forum, get over it. Still no nucs or ICBMs tested.
That is a bull cookie as well...you make the statement like it's fact.

Trump's doing more to help Ukraine than the entire EU combined, while garrisoning E Europe on NATO's behalf,
That has been proven to be inaccurate. They have given more money than the US.
Yeah. It's all in oligarch's offshore bank accounts in Cyprus. It's harder to launder Javelins & sniper rifles.
More opinion....it's impossible to eat a sniper rifle.

as Vlad packs his golden parachute. Maybe he & Trump will start a joint venture when they both leave office in 2024.
China's got their hands full with Hong Kong, retraining millions of their restive Muslim citizens & closing cities to contain their latest pandemic.
The CIA's bio-op to infect snakes & bats is working.
njbill
Posts: 7504
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:35 am

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by njbill »

seacoaster wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:00 pm
njbill wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:52 pm Yeah, but the nominee would have much more difficulty getting approved by the House (both Senate and House approval are required). So Nancy would pick the VP.
Then he hobbles along without a VP for a few months?
Gee, who would become president then if a new VP hadn’t been approved?
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18819
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by old salt »

foreverlax wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:33 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:26 pm
foreverlax wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:19 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:16 pm Like Miranda, you dodge the question about who we'll be fighting in the coming WW III which Trump starts & his successor will have to finish ?
If Trump's not re-elected, his (D) successor can slide right back into the JCPOA & collect his/her Nobel Peace Prize.
We're no closer to conflict with N Korea than we were 3 years ago. At least we're still talking rather than testing.
That would be your opinion...unless you have some factual links.
As is all original content in this discussion forum, get over it. Still no nucs or ICBMs tested.
That is a bull cookie as well...you make the statement like it's fact.
When's the last time N Korea tested a nuc or ICBM ?

Trump's doing more to help Ukraine than the entire EU combined, while garrisoning E Europe on NATO's behalf,
That has been proven to be inaccurate. They have given more money than the US.
Yeah. It's all in oligarch's offshore bank accounts in Cyprus. It's harder to launder Javelins & sniper rifles.
More opinion....it's impossible to eat a sniper rifle.
...& it's impossible to defend yourself against Russian arms without specific weapons. We're the only ones providing those weapons. Obama wouldn't even do it & Dr Fiona Hill wrote an OpEd praising him for not doing so, citing Russia's escalation dominance in the region.
You're fuzzing lethal military aid with loan guarantees. Trump's the only one standing up to Russia & doing it.


as Vlad packs his golden parachute. Maybe he & Trump will start a joint venture when they both leave office in 2024.
China's got their hands full with Hong Kong, retraining millions of their restive Muslim citizens & closing cities to contain their latest pandemic.
The CIA's bio-op to infect snakes & bats is working.
foreverlax
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by foreverlax »

old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:48 pm
foreverlax wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:33 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:26 pm
foreverlax wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:19 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:16 pm Like Miranda, you dodge the question about who we'll be fighting in the coming WW III which Trump starts & his successor will have to finish ?
If Trump's not re-elected, his (D) successor can slide right back into the JCPOA & collect his/her Nobel Peace Prize.
We're no closer to conflict with N Korea than we were 3 years ago. At least we're still talking rather than testing.
That would be your opinion...unless you have some factual links.
As is all original content in this discussion forum, get over it. Still no nucs or ICBMs tested.
That is a bull cookie as well...you make the statement like it's fact.
When's the last time N Korea tested a nuc or ICBM ?

Trump's doing more to help Ukraine than the entire EU combined, while garrisoning E Europe on NATO's behalf,
That has been proven to be inaccurate. They have given more money than the US.
Yeah. It's all in oligarch's offshore bank accounts in Cyprus. It's harder to launder Javelins & sniper rifles.
More opinion....it's impossible to eat a sniper rifle.
...& it's impossible to defend yourself against Russian arms without specific weapons. We're the only ones providing those weapons. Obama wouldn't even do it & Dr Fiona Hill wrote an OpEd praising him for not doing so.
You're fuzzing lethal military aid with loan guarantees.


as Vlad packs his golden parachute. Maybe he & Trump will start a joint venture when they both leave office in 2024.
China's got their hands full with Hong Kong, retraining millions of their restive Muslim citizens & closing cities to contain their latest pandemic.
The CIA's bio-op to infect snakes & bats is working.


Last time they tested a nuc was 9/3/17
Last time they tested an ICBM was 7/4/17
IF that is your measurement, things HAVE gotten worse since Trump took office...How are the negotiations for a nuclear free NK is going?


We may be the only ones providing lethal aid....but that isn't what you said.
Trinity
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:14 am

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by Trinity »

Ken Starr is sad. That is all.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by seacoaster »

Trinity wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:01 pm Ken Starr is sad. That is all.
Right down to the cowboy hat. Just awful.

Here's Ken trending on the Tweetosphere:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Ken%20S ... rend_click
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by Peter Brown »

Bandito wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:24 pm It’s over for you Dems. You’re toast in 2020. Try putting forth a good candidate for once instead of weaponizing a sham of an impeachment. Democrats. The party of slavery and racism in their finest hour will meet its demise in 2020


Each Dem candidate has a major weakness(es). The absolute only way they win is through impeachment. And there simply are not enough squish Republican senators left to make that happen. Maybe Romney votes against Trump. That's about all though. Republicans learned their lessons;' Dems rarely act in good faith on legislation any longer; the end game is always the same, more government. So the answer, when your policy differences are so stark, is simply to say no. That is what is causing the hornet's nest of anger from Dems, but it is what it is. All of you RDS sufferers can mostly thank Harry Reid.
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by seacoaster »

Pretty good article concerning the stakes; what's on trial?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... aign=share

"....Senators now face the monumental question of whether to remove the president from office—and yet, something bigger is at stake here. The Constitution’s fundamental design is on trial too.

This is clear from the articles of impeachment themselves. Start with the first article, which charges that the president abused his power by holding support for an ally foreign government hostage to better his chances at reelection, rather than advancing the interests of the United States.

But President Trump, with the support of his attorneys at the Department of Justice and his own White House counsel, has argued that he has absolute authority over foreign policy. Thus, no abuse of power is possible, because any power he exercises is legitimate by definition. His attorney Alan Dershowitz has told the public he will go so far as to argue that the Constitution does not even allow impeachment for abuse of power, only for crimes.

Trump’s defense is a direct test of the Constitution’s allocation of power when it comes to foreign policy. The Constitution distributes foreign-policy power between Congress and the executive branch. The president commands the armed forces and controls diplomacy through the State Department, but Congress raises and pays for the military, appropriates foreign aid, and has the sole power to declare war.

There are areas of tension and uncertainty the Constitution doesn’t address, and presidents of both parties have fought with Congress over their respective roles. But until Donald Trump, presidents have at least seen the relevance of congressional power. According to the historian Jon Meacham, George H. W. Bush mentioned impeachment five times in his personal diary as he labored for congressional approval to get Iraqi troops out of Kuwait after its invasion. If Congress wouldn’t approve, the elder Bush believed he might face impeachment if he moved forward regardless. Barack Obama spent six months striking ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but did go to Congress eventually to authorize military force. Bush the younger requested and received approval for military action from the Democratically controlled Senate in 2002. Nancy Pelosi refused to consider an impeachment investigation of George W. Bush for initiating the invasion of Iraq based on a misrepresentation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the point is, impeachment is Congress’s way of reining in a president who has over-assumed foreign-policy authority. In this way, the impeachment of Donald Trump tests whether doing so is possible, which is a test of the Constitution itself.

The second article of impeachment focuses on another core constitutional principle: congressional oversight of the executive. It, too, is a crucial test of the Constitution, not an esoteric argument about some generic allegation of wrongdoing. This article charges Trump with obstructing the impeachment process itself. Reports that former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript contains evidence central to the inquiry but that has not yet been heard in a proper forum have only added to the gravity of what’s described in the second impeachment article.

Republicans have tragically endorsed Trump’s defiance of Congress’s every query. Remember that neither Richard Nixon nor Bill Clinton argued that he didn’t have to give Congress any documents, they certainly didn’t argue that they could block all witnesses in their impeachment investigations, and they didn’t get away with blocking evidence to the extent that they tried.

The fact that Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham demanded witnesses during Clinton’s impeachment trial, and that every Senate impeachment trial has included witness testimony, has not deterred the Republicans who support Trump, even as they point to the Clinton trial as precedent. Clinton’s trial had excerpts of videotaped depositions of Clinton himself and Monica Lewinsky, but that is exactly the point. The witnesses had been deposed, evidence gathered, and the Senate saw it all. More important, the stakes were not as high. Here, the Constitution’s central organizing principle to protect the country against an authoritarian regime is on the line: the balance of powers among the three branches of government.

A real impeachment trial—one with all the evidence available, and senators who were intent on following their oaths, not their polls—would mean that the Senate would be forced to consider the limits of presidential power in a context of personal gain. Yet most Republicans have been so completely dismissive of the serious allegations against the president, they have reinforced the absolute authority of Trump in matters of national security. By refusing to consider calling Bolton, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and their aides, Senate Republicans are suggesting that there is not even enough evidence to support getting more evidence.

Should they succeed, obstruction becomes a valid means to end congressional impeachment. The complete circularity of the Republican arguments would put the Constitution in an unbreakable bind. A future president could again refuse to turn documents over to Congress and could block all government witnesses, even if their testimony directly relates to crucial evidence around impeachable offenses. Then the president’s party can say that the evidence is insufficient to prove impeachable offenses.

As the constitutional scholar Michael Gerhardt testified during the December 4 House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, the president “says he is entitled not to comply with all subpoenas […] He’s immune to that. He’s entitled to keep all information confidential from Congress, doesn’t even have to give a reason. Well, when you put all those things together, he’s blocked out every way in which to hold himself accountable except for elections. And the critical thing to understand here is, that is precisely what he was trying to undermine in the Ukraine situation.” The paradox is paralyzing. It eviscerates not only the impeachment power but also the design of the branches put in place by the Founders to protect the country from becoming what they were trying to leave behind—monarchy.

Fundamentally, this impeachment is a test of the Constitution, which is another way of saying it is a test of how the American system allocates power. To condone the president’s behavior—and, unforgivably, to not even adequately investigate it—is to shift power further into the executive, to break the provisions for oversight that the Constitution created, and to take a major step toward the sort of consolidated power the Framers sought to avoid."
User avatar
RedFromMI
Posts: 5079
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:42 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by RedFromMI »

From Twitter:

Erin satanic pregnancy Ryan
@morninggloria
Looking like an all girls middle school cafeteria flasher; on brand
EPTdcqbWoAE_zND.jpg
EPTdcqbWoAE_zND.jpg (52.76 KiB) Viewed 1173 times
ggait
Posts: 4421
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:23 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by ggait »

Lindsey G:

Sunday: “What do we do? Delay the trial so the president can go to court? Or do we as the Senate destroy the president’s ability to go to court — a bad spot to be in in the Senate ... If we seek witnesses, then we’re going to throw the country into chaos.”

Monday: “I want to see what’s in the manuscript. Let’s see what’s in the manuscript, let’s see if it’s relevant, and if it is, I'll make a decision about Bolton.”

So does that mean that LG is going to subpoena the manuscript? But not subpoena Bolton himself to testify?

It is a tough, thankless job being the enabler/rationalizer for Trump. Clean-up in Aisle 2. And Aisle 5. And Aisle 9. And all the other Aisles too....
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
ggait
Posts: 4421
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:23 pm

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Post by ggait »

Aaron Rupar
‏Verified account @atrupar
2h2 hours ago

Ken Starr unironically lamenting that impeachments are happening "all too frequently" is so much better with a laugh track

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212916294
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”