“rckymtn says:April 8, 2020 at 12:43 am
Trumps personal/DOJ/IG/AG decisions have been completely negligent. Why he didn’t fire every single obama appointment day 1 will always always been a massive F’up on his part. On top of that letting these deep state F’s close our country down and crash the economy is another MAJOR F up on this part. I’ll never understand what he is doing. Hate to say bad things about him but F this is frustrating to watch.”
I remember when former president Obama’s campaign promise was “change”, the “change” that could be believed in that voters have yearned for but have never got. He knew that the word “change” was beloved by everyone because most people believed that “change” resembled the horn of plenty. But real “change” frightens almost everyone: when inquiring about the cause of illness the ancient historian Herodotus said that he believed that illness was caused by “change”. Today almost everyone who says anything about politics hates President Trump -“Trump Haters” – because he threatens to “change” how things are done in the “deep state”- the state – bureaucracy that fears the temporary demands that may be put upon them every election period by disrupting officials who do not understand how things are done. Those whose work days follow procedures for keeping government functioning smoothly fear that anyone not initiated in its ways could be a tyrannical outsider demanding that they perform their duties his way.
September 25, 2013
In 2013 when Mr. Obama was president I learned that limits of power has been a central notion of debate among the West’s writers and thinkers. In a 2010 article from the Economist entitled “Limits of Power” and a Mar 23, 2011 article published by the Cato Institute headed “Understanding the Limits of American Power” discussion of limits in America’s power may actually reveal America’s slowly developing new foreign policy. The US’s threatening retaliation against Syria for weeks then almost over night, then almost gleefully accepting the plan for Syria to formally reveal its chemicals to the world may not demonstrate Mr. Obama’s uncertain foreign policy, but may permit voters to get used to their administration’s acting on its own real interests informed by the limitations of its ability to further the interests of other nations.
And now 5 years later in December 2018 President Trump’s withdrawing America’s forces from Syria may be seen as a further step in America’s acknowledging the limits of its power.
And on April 2021 president Biden as he finalizes U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan makes that old academic jargon “limits of power” a reality.
Like all opinion mine is biased against breaking electronic news deliverers.
So in my opinion most who report what they call news online seem to warm to China
and fear Russia. I’ve also picked up the view, perhaps one of the few seeming objective online views, that as Obama’s administrators favour China, Trump’s will favour Russia.
July 24, 2016
“Dismayed by Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg Will Endorse Hillary Clinton
New York Times- 1 hour ago”
Whose fair share?
November 3, 2012Once a Democrat now a Republican, billionaire Mayor Bloomberg recently endorsed Democrat Mr. Obama’s candidacy. Now way back on October 20, 2012 I think I was being prepared for this endorsement by a New York Times article entitled “Ever Bipartisan, Bloomberg Jabs Both Candidates” in which I read Mr. Bloomberg’s criticism of the President: ” ‘This business of ‘Well, they can afford it; they should pay their fair share?’ Who are you to say ‘Somebody else’s fair share?’ “and his admonishment of Romney” I do think that Romney’s business experience would be valuable, but I don’t know that running Bain Capital gives you the experience to run the country. “But less than two weeks and one hurricane later Mayor Bloomberg announces his support for Mr. Obama because he feels that Hurricane Sandy may be evidence of global warming which Mr. Obama is better equipped to manage than Mr. Romney, and not Mr. Obama’s most repeated rhetoric since he took office in 2008/09, which is that the rich should pay more in taxes (their “fair share”).
Mr. Hollande followed, speaking above the caption “act of war” that’s been on my screen since Saturday November 14. His Agreement with Mr. Obama’s call for stricter border control was expressed in a caption calling for stricter controls in Europe. Then another caption appeared as Mr. Hollande continued speaking asking for extra legal measures. There were statements about the need for greater powers and more resources(money?).
Amidst all the video statements above, one about extending a state of emergency beyond the current 3 month period seems typical in its showing a kind of after-the-fact-lack-of for thought and planning as though states of emergency should be implemented after the fact not before, as if someone’d forgotten that major attacks seem to have taken a long time to plan and do not immediately repeat after an atrocity; and so may not require an immediate increase in government resources (money?) and powers, but rather thought and careful planning.
And today, November 15, 2015, the “unity” theme keeps appearing on my TV screen silently in printed video captions under president Obama’s speaking at the G20 conference in Turkey about stricter national boarder enforcement. And the thought occurred that at the G20 “unity” as in Mr. Obama’s early political campaigns means agreement, and it’s difficult to imagine anyone in his audience wanting to disturb the quietude of “unity”.
December 26, 2014
I was just looking at my most recent posts: one very old one and one reminding me that “unity” is still a central political theme along with “change” both highlighted by Mr. Obama in his 2008 primary campaign bringing to mind a curious omission among political slogans – “freedom”.
More than 2 days have passed since the debates on Wednesday, October 4, 2012, that as usual I refused to watch. For to me televised political debates are a kind of show business, presenting a small part of an election campaign puzzle, a kind of distraction from real problems that presidential campaigns themselves distract from. These real concerns include who gets the money spent on these increasingly expensive contests. Is it the entertainment community, corporations, or investors like Mr. Romney, or the $250,000. a year middle classers? These real concerns also include the increasing cost of necessities while wages stagnate or diminish. And one of these necessities is fuel: for furnaces, shipping of food from far across the world, driving of autos for employment, and who the candidates for president and their parties actually represent. For what matters most about these debates is what is said about them on television and in newspapers later. On Thursday, October 4, 2012, New York Times articles suggested that Mr. Obama had been a surprisingly ineffective speaker, but by the next day, and by today, October 6, 2012, debate performance seems forgotten, so too the reported largest audience in debate watching history( a much-advertised event, paid for by ?) And time, time helps sift things to bring perspective so that today October 6, 2012 Mr. Obama’s apparent oratorical meekness seems unimportant and the time-worn pronouncement about these debates is promulgated with emphasis on the moderators less than demanding questions and not how Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama might have been the winner, and that this has all been “Much Ado About Nothing”.
——————————————————————————–
Despite the debate results, however, Mr Obama carries a slender margin in the latest Reuters poll, which showed him hanging on with 46 per cent of the vote, ahead of Mr Romney on 41 per cent.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Deremigi's Blog 