Jimmy Carter was an outsider when he won in 1960 so the party fixed it so that won't happen again. Trump became the candidate of the ultra right Federalist Society and handed it control of the federal courts and the anti-enviromental corporations to whom he delivered the means to set back whatever advances had been made in the environment. And then he became the pawn of the ultra right deep pocketed Zionists in the US like but not limited to Sheldon Adelson,
I never said Trump wasn't evil. He was and is, so I didn't vote for him. I already criticized him for appointing neocons and other swamp creatures in my first comment, and subsequently for Warp Speed. You are of course correct about Zionism and Adelson, but I see no need to list everything he's done wrong. Caitlin's point, which I agree with, is that **virtually** everybody is polarized. Either Trump can do nothing right or Trump can do nothing wrong. The few good things Trump tried to do were fiercely opposed by Democrats. Why? Because it could not be admitted that he did anything good: TDS.
Carter an outsider? Really? He was a favorite of Hyman Rickover and in line to become the captain of one of the first two nuclear subs when he resigned from the Navy to return to Plains. He entered politics ten years later in 1963 and was elected governor of Georgia in 1970. The only sense in which he was an "outsider" was that he was the first Southerner to become President since the Civil War. He was perfectly acceptable to the elites, who had as you wrote "fixed it" so that no candidate unacceptable to the Democratic elites could ever be nominated, immediately after the McGovern fiasco in 1972. Carter was perfectly acceptable to them. He was not an "outsider," and he was responsible for both the "Carter Doctrine" and the long US involvement in Afghanistan.
Carter has been a far better ex-President than he was a serving President.
My argument didn't list all of Trump's faults but enough to indicate he wasn't like previous presidents as Caitlin, at the very minimum, implied. And that was the short list of what made him different, the most important of which, we may come to realize, has been his use of, for want of a better description, fascist style phrases to deliberately stir up his supporters to the point where they now constitute a serious physical threat to those who they view, collectively, as their socialist enemy. No president since the Civil War has come to that behavior.
True, he did appoint at least two neocons, Bolton, because he was pressured to do so by his benefactor Adelson, and Abrams, but most of the neocons backed Clinton, like PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan who wrote that she was one of them when it came to foreign policy. I am not really sure what Trump seriously tried to do in a positive sense that was short stopped by the Democrats.
Yes, Carter was an outsider, not to much that he came from the South was not as significant as the fact that he was not part of the Democrat political establishment and hence, not cognizant of the interests of the party's major funders who happened to be liberal Jews who strongly supported Israel. Thus, Carter's efforts to achieve the Camp David agreement which would win him a Nobel prize were not welcomed by the Jewish political establishment which, despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary was not eager to give up the Sinai, even for peace with Egypt. Nor were they enraptured when, in 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon, he warned Begin that if he did not withdraw Israel's troops, promised US aid to Israel would be in jeopardy. No Democrat establishment player would ever have made such a threat. All that, plus his call for a Geneva conference to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict which would involve the Soviet Union was the death for America's Jews who gave him 48% of their vote, the lowest tally by far in modern times.
The Carter Doctrine and the intervention in Afghanistan, which was the brainchild of Zbigniew Brzezinski, I will not try to defend and I would largely agree with you that he has been better as an ex-president.
"I am not really sure what Trump seriously tried to do in a positive sense that was short stopped by the Democrats."
Democrats screamed bloody murder when Trump talked to Putin in Helsinki. The same people who criticized the CIA for lying about Iraqi WMDs were livid that Trump would doubt made up reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Democrats screamed bloody murder again (twice) when he made noises about withdrawing troops from NE Syria, and yet again, even passing legislation to prohibit it when he announced a withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Democrats failed to criticize, sometimes even applauded most of the awful things Trump did in international relations such as bombing Syria twice after false flag chemical attacks. Their response to recognizing Guaido was, "Yeah, Maduro is a tyrant.
Trump is not a fascist or a racist. More blacks voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016 and more than for any other Republican candidate in the 20th or 21st Century. He actually lost support among white males.
You've provided an excellent example of precisely what Caitlin wrote about. Thank you.
You wrote: "The same people who criticized the CIA for lying about Iraqi WMDs were livid that Trump would doubt made up reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election." Well, first of all, very few of the Democrats who jumped all over Trump for the CIA lying about Iraqi WMDs, really had much critically to say as most of them had supported overthrowing Saddam in any case, following the PNAC line.
You wrote: "Democrats screamed bloody murder again (twice) when he made noises about withdrawing troops from NE Syria, and yet again, even passing legislation to prohibit it when he announced a withdrawal from Afghanistan." Sure, the Democrats have largely been the war party but Trump, who had dropped the MOAB blockbuster (the largest in the US non-nuclear arsenal) didn't follow through on withdrawing troops but shifted some who were there to Saudi Arabia where he upped support for the Saudis and, as I mentioned before, went further than any president in pushing Iran into what would be a devastating war, far worse than what has happened in Syria.
The point I was making that Trump has been unlike other presidents while Caitlin contends otherwise and I provided in my post solid evidence to back up my position. While NOT a supporter of Assad (I have had personal experiences with his father's regime and it is evident that torture is part of his regime as it is of most countries on the planet, including ours and Caitlin's--Assad, after all, like Khadafy, were participants in the CIA's rendition/torture program--I have opposed the regime plans of the US and its allies which were first called to attention by Michael Flynn, who now seems to be off his rocker, when he headed the DIA and opposed them. I also did not buy the chemical warfare stories any more than did the now disappeared Seymour Hersh and my late friend, Robert Fisk, neither of whom were pro-Assad but pro-truth. That's my position which clearly makes you uncomfortable but nevertheless safe in remaining anonymous.
Every time you post you prove Caitlin's point by showing yourself incapable of acknowledging the few things Trump has done right or tried, like being willing to talk to the Russians and North Korea. He tried to have Flynn as his NS Advisor, but that was blocked. Maybe things would have been different if Flynn had remained. Like maybe Flynn would have pointed out that some of his generals were insubordinate by ignoring his orders to prepare withdrawal from Syria. Flynn is not off his rocker, and that suggestion is just another symptom of your own TDS.
Jimmy Carter was an outsider when he won in 1960 so the party fixed it so that won't happen again. Trump became the candidate of the ultra right Federalist Society and handed it control of the federal courts and the anti-enviromental corporations to whom he delivered the means to set back whatever advances had been made in the environment. And then he became the pawn of the ultra right deep pocketed Zionists in the US like but not limited to Sheldon Adelson,
I never said Trump wasn't evil. He was and is, so I didn't vote for him. I already criticized him for appointing neocons and other swamp creatures in my first comment, and subsequently for Warp Speed. You are of course correct about Zionism and Adelson, but I see no need to list everything he's done wrong. Caitlin's point, which I agree with, is that **virtually** everybody is polarized. Either Trump can do nothing right or Trump can do nothing wrong. The few good things Trump tried to do were fiercely opposed by Democrats. Why? Because it could not be admitted that he did anything good: TDS.
Carter an outsider? Really? He was a favorite of Hyman Rickover and in line to become the captain of one of the first two nuclear subs when he resigned from the Navy to return to Plains. He entered politics ten years later in 1963 and was elected governor of Georgia in 1970. The only sense in which he was an "outsider" was that he was the first Southerner to become President since the Civil War. He was perfectly acceptable to the elites, who had as you wrote "fixed it" so that no candidate unacceptable to the Democratic elites could ever be nominated, immediately after the McGovern fiasco in 1972. Carter was perfectly acceptable to them. He was not an "outsider," and he was responsible for both the "Carter Doctrine" and the long US involvement in Afghanistan.
Carter has been a far better ex-President than he was a serving President.
My argument didn't list all of Trump's faults but enough to indicate he wasn't like previous presidents as Caitlin, at the very minimum, implied. And that was the short list of what made him different, the most important of which, we may come to realize, has been his use of, for want of a better description, fascist style phrases to deliberately stir up his supporters to the point where they now constitute a serious physical threat to those who they view, collectively, as their socialist enemy. No president since the Civil War has come to that behavior.
True, he did appoint at least two neocons, Bolton, because he was pressured to do so by his benefactor Adelson, and Abrams, but most of the neocons backed Clinton, like PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan who wrote that she was one of them when it came to foreign policy. I am not really sure what Trump seriously tried to do in a positive sense that was short stopped by the Democrats.
Yes, Carter was an outsider, not to much that he came from the South was not as significant as the fact that he was not part of the Democrat political establishment and hence, not cognizant of the interests of the party's major funders who happened to be liberal Jews who strongly supported Israel. Thus, Carter's efforts to achieve the Camp David agreement which would win him a Nobel prize were not welcomed by the Jewish political establishment which, despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary was not eager to give up the Sinai, even for peace with Egypt. Nor were they enraptured when, in 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon, he warned Begin that if he did not withdraw Israel's troops, promised US aid to Israel would be in jeopardy. No Democrat establishment player would ever have made such a threat. All that, plus his call for a Geneva conference to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict which would involve the Soviet Union was the death for America's Jews who gave him 48% of their vote, the lowest tally by far in modern times.
The Carter Doctrine and the intervention in Afghanistan, which was the brainchild of Zbigniew Brzezinski, I will not try to defend and I would largely agree with you that he has been better as an ex-president.
"I am not really sure what Trump seriously tried to do in a positive sense that was short stopped by the Democrats."
Democrats screamed bloody murder when Trump talked to Putin in Helsinki. The same people who criticized the CIA for lying about Iraqi WMDs were livid that Trump would doubt made up reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Democrats screamed bloody murder again (twice) when he made noises about withdrawing troops from NE Syria, and yet again, even passing legislation to prohibit it when he announced a withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Democrats failed to criticize, sometimes even applauded most of the awful things Trump did in international relations such as bombing Syria twice after false flag chemical attacks. Their response to recognizing Guaido was, "Yeah, Maduro is a tyrant.
Trump is not a fascist or a racist. More blacks voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016 and more than for any other Republican candidate in the 20th or 21st Century. He actually lost support among white males.
You've provided an excellent example of precisely what Caitlin wrote about. Thank you.
You wrote: "The same people who criticized the CIA for lying about Iraqi WMDs were livid that Trump would doubt made up reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election." Well, first of all, very few of the Democrats who jumped all over Trump for the CIA lying about Iraqi WMDs, really had much critically to say as most of them had supported overthrowing Saddam in any case, following the PNAC line.
You wrote: "Democrats screamed bloody murder again (twice) when he made noises about withdrawing troops from NE Syria, and yet again, even passing legislation to prohibit it when he announced a withdrawal from Afghanistan." Sure, the Democrats have largely been the war party but Trump, who had dropped the MOAB blockbuster (the largest in the US non-nuclear arsenal) didn't follow through on withdrawing troops but shifted some who were there to Saudi Arabia where he upped support for the Saudis and, as I mentioned before, went further than any president in pushing Iran into what would be a devastating war, far worse than what has happened in Syria.
The point I was making that Trump has been unlike other presidents while Caitlin contends otherwise and I provided in my post solid evidence to back up my position. While NOT a supporter of Assad (I have had personal experiences with his father's regime and it is evident that torture is part of his regime as it is of most countries on the planet, including ours and Caitlin's--Assad, after all, like Khadafy, were participants in the CIA's rendition/torture program--I have opposed the regime plans of the US and its allies which were first called to attention by Michael Flynn, who now seems to be off his rocker, when he headed the DIA and opposed them. I also did not buy the chemical warfare stories any more than did the now disappeared Seymour Hersh and my late friend, Robert Fisk, neither of whom were pro-Assad but pro-truth. That's my position which clearly makes you uncomfortable but nevertheless safe in remaining anonymous.
Every time you post you prove Caitlin's point by showing yourself incapable of acknowledging the few things Trump has done right or tried, like being willing to talk to the Russians and North Korea. He tried to have Flynn as his NS Advisor, but that was blocked. Maybe things would have been different if Flynn had remained. Like maybe Flynn would have pointed out that some of his generals were insubordinate by ignoring his orders to prepare withdrawal from Syria. Flynn is not off his rocker, and that suggestion is just another symptom of your own TDS.
Do you believe Flynn's recent call for Trump to declare martial law the actions of a sane person?