American Election 2024

None of that 50% are going to complain until one of these actions affects them personally.

I’d guess the National Parks this summer might generate some blowback due to hiring freeze affecting seasonal staffing.
 
Tony Crocker said:
None of that 50% are going to complain until one of these actions affects them personally.

I’d guess the National Parks this summer might generate some blowback due to hiring freeze affecting seasonal staffing.
Click to expand...
I was going to reply but I’ll do they right thing and just observe this thread with interest aside from anything that is related to Australia.
On that Clive Palmer’s party’s catch cry is “TRUMPet of Patriots”. 😂
Edit. I saw a satirical piece that said he was going to build a wall on our southern border and make Mexico pay for it.
theshovel.com.au

Clive Palmer Announces New ‘Trumpet of Patriots’ Party, Promises To Build Wall Between Australia and Mexico — The Shovel

“One of the things that I’ve learnt over my career is that all politics is local. Which is why we’ll be fielding candidates in all fifty states"
theshovel.com.au theshovel.com.au
 
Last edited:
Two recent anecdotes:

I was complaining to a friendly, young stranger on a chairlift. It was about the clumsy, chaotic attempt by Trump/Musk/DOGE to streamline the Federal Govt. They are throwing out the baby with the bath water. At the end of my diatribe I said, "yet I voted for the guy... don't ask me to explain." Without a hint of recrimination the stranger said, "no, I get it."

I was discussing the same USGovt streamlining subject with two conservative ski friends. It's getting personal I told them. It cost my nephew his job and it may yet cost one or more of my children their jobs. These are older, smart, guys, especially smart about finance. They were sympathetic to the personal threat, but at the same time loved the idea that finally someone was going after USG waste, fraud and abuse and trying to do something concrete about our National Debt.

Can't speak to what Harvey said about we're all responsible, but I think half the country is deeply dissatisfied with the way the country was going. This half is ok with disruption. They may not all agree on what exactly gets disrupted, but that's beside the point :)
 
jimk said:
Can't speak to what Harvey said about we're all responsible, but I think half the country is deeply dissatisfied with the way the country was going.
Click to expand...

If half are dissatisfied, then who exactly is responsible for that?

The dissatisfied half?
The other half?
The oligarchs?
The Supremes? Congress? Executive?
Some other group?

I'm saying all of us are responsible for it.

Maybe that's just an opinion. I figured it to be an immutable fact. Or more accurately a tautology, true by definition.

Maybe no one is responsible, and it's just the natural progression of capitalism, leaving more and more people behind.
 
I'm not making comment on this topic but I'm curious about what everyday Americans think of Mr Trump's views on the Russia invasion of Ukraine?
 
Most Americans have zero interest in foreign policy unless it affects them personally.

So the pushback that would matter would come from old school Reagan Republicans. Lots of them were outraged on January 6 but got over it fast when they observed Trump’s enduring popularity. So it’s not clear how many of them will fight Trump on Ukraine in the long term.

The interesting case is Secretary of State Marco Rubio. His track record is solidly pro-Ukraine. He’s currently evasive, not condemning Trump’s remarks but not endorsing them either.
 
Last edited:
Tony Crocker said:
Most Americans have zero interest in foreign policy unless it affects them personally.
Click to expand...
Do they recognise many nations have regularly and loyally followed the US into conflicts in the past 5 or 6 decades? They don't see that the US being the world's major power has a partial responsibility to be a watchdog of sorts? Those are both genuine questions and not meant to be inflammatory.
Australia being a resource rich nation with realistically very limited defence capabilities is suddenly very vulnerable considering the leader of the free world has condoned a superpower with a despot leader invading a non threatening neighbouring nation. The Taiwanese must be more than a little nervous right now. I'm pretty sure the goings on of the past week won't have escaped Xi and the CCP generally.
 
I went out to dinner last night with a friend/business counterpart from Perth, who's had a number of head-spinning experiences on her current U.S. visit. While waiting for her bags at Houston's luggage claim after the long flight from down under, there was an East German-like recording: "Welcome to the United States. Your baggage is under the care and control of President Donald J. Trump." She also walked by the USAID building in DC a few days ago while they were pulling down the agency's flags and removing the logos from the side of the building.
 
Sbooker said:
Do they recognise many nations have regularly and loyally followed the US into conflicts in the past 5 or 6 decades? They don't see that the US being the world's major power has a partial responsibility to be a watchdog of sorts? Those are both genuine questions and not meant to be inflammatory.
Click to expand...
The USA has a long history of isolationism, consensus of the vast majority through the 19th century.. There was a popular backlash after WWI when the Senate refused to join the League of Nations, an idea pushed by then president Woodrow Wilson. The Republicans were the isolationist party leading up to WWII. FDR took unilateral executive actions of questionable constitutionality to aid Britain in 1940 and 1941 before Pearl Harbor. Much of the Cold War era was the only time there was a strong consensus for activist foreign policy. The American Left became isolationist after Vietnam, not a winning issue for them for the rest of the Cold War.

Post Cold War, incompetent execution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan revived isolationism in both parties. There are lots of bad actors around the world but to many Americans the logical argument is that none of them are the existential threats of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
 
James D mentioned sometime back about the BS factor with Trump. He uses BS to test the water and initiate negotiations. I honestly think some of the anti-Ukraine BS talk right now is somehow setting things up for a reasonable settlement of the Rus-Ukraine war. I think all of us here would like to see a settlement, even if it's not fully to the likes of Ukraine. It's not good for Euro/World stability for that conflict to continue to drag on with the risk of Putin doing something nuclear to save face.
 
The rebuttal to jimk's argument above is that Trump has been an unabashed Putin fanboy going way back to at least 2016 (remember Helsinki?). Nonetheless the war is sufficiently stalemated that handing over all of Ukraine to Putin is just as unrealistic as rolling back Russia's gains to prewar borders. It would be difficult for Trump to impose a blatantly lopsided settlement on Ukraine and some of the Euros. The question is whether a peace settlement sets up a stable enough situation where Putin can't invade and take more later.
 
Last edited:
Given the ongoing mineral/rare earth horse trading with Trump, I wonder how much of Ukraine's deposits are already in Putin's hands? 25%?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top