Generational Dynamics World View News

[guest]

Navigator, Romney would be a horrible candidate and would get destroyed. The regular everyday working class can't stand him. Would Romney be better than Harris or Newsome? The answer to that is yes, but that is an insanely low bar to beat.

The vast majority of people don't want either extreme, which is now Trump / Harris. They want a "middle road", be it a Romney or a Manchin. Either would win in a landslide versus Trump or Harris.

The point was that the Dems could guarantee all Dem votes, two thirds (or more) of independents, and a third of Republicans if they went with Romney.

Most republican voters (Trump supporters) believe that democrat politicians and most republican politicians are corrupt and controlled (by money, blackmail, big pharma, defense, intel agencies, etc), and don't trust them. This includes Romney. Republican voters mostly hate him.

Trump made his fortune then got into politics, which theoretically makes him less susceptible to corruption. This is the opposite of Biden, Pelosi, Obama, and lots of republicans who made it into government, then got impossibly rich.

Trump was worth $3.9B before taking office and was worth $3.0B when he left. Also he's lucky to be alive now and if he were "in it for himself", he would've left the race a long time ago.

That's why his supporters voted for him and will continue to do so.

[FullMoon]

Given what we're facing, I deeply wish we had better choices. If Biden can't campaign, how can he run the country? What are Russia and China thinking right now? Europe still can't get its act together when it comes to their own defense. We're not talking poor nations for whom such helplessness is understandable, but many of the world's richest. Poland and Finland are among the few nations taking steps to do what's necessary. Working together, Europe could indeed deter Russia from further aggression; however, that's unlikely to happen.

In contrast to Europe, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines are engaging in a proper buildup, albeit not quite as much as I'd think necessary. No matter who becomes President in November, China is going to be our main focus from this point forward. Fortunately, I don't think the CCP is especially competent, and their navy is entirely untested. However, internal chaos in the United States is only going to encourage them.

As I have mentioned before, Europe's ability to compromise its own security is a wonder to behold. I readily foresee a "phased" entry of Europe into the next war, as happened in both World Wars. When China attacks Taiwan, most of NATO will declare "neutrality". They will even let Chinese troops reinforce the Russians and finish off Ukraine without lifting a finger. (Poland being the exception here). Then they will tell Poland it is on its own. Then they will try and stay neutral while Poland gets overrun. And so on.
(see my previous postings on NATO).

Yes, the CCP and their Military have major competency issues. And that's a big plus for us. On the other hand, they will have the element of surprise, and they have been planning and preparing for the first strikes and moves, many of which will be dramatic, while we watch our own incompetent/incapacitated leaders fumble around and do little to nothing to prepare us for what's coming.

I think for Europe, and most people in general, is that they watch the horror coming closer and closer on all fronts and they'd prefer to believe it won't get them. The writing is clearly on the wall for all to see even here in our country and everyone continues on as if it were a slideshow. Bread and circuses, ball games and "elections". Even our own heavily funded MIC won't have proper munitions and missiles to last but through the beginning of the conflict. What happens after that is hard to conceive of. We've had it so good for so long that we really don't understand what we're up against.

https://youtube.com/shorts/RNcg0wUrXgo? ... FaqLmnlD0x
My grandfather flew over Germany in WW2 like this guy.

https://youtu.be/EVzmKpw_ges?si=L2Po1aDqCnNGtYoS
This is a good interview with Neil Howe.

[FullMoon]

The point was that the Dems could guarantee all Dem votes, two thirds (or more) of independents, and a third of Republicans if they went with Romney.

But they won't. Makes too much sense. Instead they appear to be rallying around the despised VP with no accomplishments who will shoot herself in the foot (or worse) once she is in a debate or any kind of serious interview.

Sadly I'm not as optimistic about this being a regular"free and fair" election. Sure there's always some cheating by both sides but I think they're planning something. I wouldn't put anything past those people at this point.
And the Trump shooting was pretty obviously some kind of "inside job". If only by a small amount of person's and small amount of deliberate incompetence. But who and why is really opening the Pandora's box of conspiracy.

[FullMoon]

In contrast to Europe, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines are engaging in a proper buildup, albeit not quite as much as I'd think necessary. No matter who becomes President in November, China is going to be our main focus from this point forward. Fortunately, I don't think the CCP is especially competent, and their navy is entirely untested. However, internal chaos in the United States is only going to encourage them

The fact that there's a concerted and effect counter to their expansionist plans together with a rapidly growing domestic chaos collapsing economy should be enough to pull forward their plans.
The recent Plenum of top leadership was touted as being limited newsworthy info and not properly addressing the economy. But that's just what they divulged from a thoroughly secretive event. I heard credible reports recently that this meeting was delayed for a relatively long time because Xi couldn't make up his mind about how to deal with their extremely volatile situation. But it seems clear for many reasons that those advocating external war as opposed to internal crackdown were victorious. This included the most influencial and powerful Wang Hu Ning who has been in charge of absorbing Taiwan. He's an expert strategist and I would guess he's trying to knock the US down without too much of a military fight so that they can fill the power vacuum in the Pacific. They've been laying the plans across the S Pacific to S America and probably have something up their sleeves. Or enough of something to convince themselves that they have a chance of success.

[Navigator]

Navigator, Romney would be a horrible candidate and would get destroyed. The regular everyday working class can't stand him. Would Romney be better than Harris or Newsome? The answer to that is yes, but that is an insanely low bar to beat.

The vast majority of people don't want either extreme, which is now Trump / Harris. They want a "middle road", be it a Romney or a Manchin. Either would win in a landslide versus Trump or Harris.

The point was that the Dems could guarantee all Dem votes, two thirds (or more) of independents, and a third of Republicans if they went with Romney.

Most republican voters (Trump supporters) believe that democrat politicians and most republican politicians are corrupt and controlled (by money, blackmail, big pharma, defense, intel agencies, etc), and don't trust them. This includes Romney. Republican voters mostly hate him.

Trump made his fortune then got into politics, which theoretically makes him less susceptible to corruption. This is the opposite of Biden, Pelosi, Obama, and lots of republicans who made it into government, then got impossibly rich.

Trump was worth $3.9B before taking office and was worth $3.0B when he left. Also he's lucky to be alive now and if he were "in it for himself", he would've left the race a long time ago.

That's why his supporters voted for him and will continue to do so.

I agree with you that most politicians (Rep and Dem) are crooked and many are controlled by outside interests.

As a conservative, I would love to have a hero with great values come to the rescue. Unfortunately, Trump is not that guy. Here is what I have written on Trump and his supposed business success in the past (note that this doesn't include my take on his personally repugnant morals):

Trump as Politician (2016)
Trump is a real estate magnate from New York City. He borrowed billions for projects and then enriched himself in a shell game that left the banks holding the bag when the loans came due. He then converted over to selling his name and persona. His method of success is not to create, but to enrich himself at the expense of others. Personally, he is a thin skinned bully who says the most outrageously egotistical things. On top of this are his misogynistic statements that are an affront to any female.

The Trump Business Model (2017)
Donald Trump professes to be one of the best businessmen in existence. A large part of his presidential campaign and appeal to voters was that Trump, by becoming financially successful, learned how to successfully operate a large business, and that this would translate to successful political leadership. So what is Trump’s business? How did he run it? And what are the implications for all of us now that he has moved from business to political leadership?

Trump started out in New York City refurbishing old hotels and building new ones. Before he did so, he got “tax abatements” from the city for what he was to build. This meant that the properties would not be taxed for forty years. So, he got $400 Million from the city (over the 40 years no tax was collected) for a hotel it cost him $120 Million to build.

This is how Trump constructed and profited from his initial Manhattan property empire. He was guided and aided by none other than Roy Cohn, the infamous Senator McCArthy attorney, who later represented most of the heads of New York’s mafia families.

He then became a big player in Atlantic City, building Trump Plaza and then Trump Castle. He then went too far, borrowing and bonding heavily to build the Taj Mahal. This last casino was so big, and required so much debt to build, that Trump couldn’t afford the interest payments (let alone payments to construction contractors). At this point, banks stopped lending him additional funds. So he went public. He sold stock in “Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts”. Around the same time, he moved all of the personal and company debt he could into the already over-leveraged Taj Mahal.

Years ago, I played a computer game called “Railroad Tycoon”. After some experience, I found that there was a foolproof way to win the game every time. You started off the game owning one of many different rail lines, let’s call it “MyRR”. To win, the best strategy was to take control of a faltering competitor, call it “SadRR”. Once you controlled SadRR, you would have them borrow all the money that banks would lend them. You then transferred the borrowed funds from SadRR to MyRR. Then you had SadRR declare bankruptcy. The banks could only go after SadRR, as that is who borrowed the money. MyRR pocketed a windfall.

Trump developed a similar business model, using the Taj Mahal as “SadRR”. Money was transferred from the public company to other Trump owned entities, by paying for goods and services. A company or a hotel doesn’t have to prove that it has hired the best supplier or the best management firm, and it pays those it chooses what they ask. This way Trump was able to get out from under mountains of debt, yet leaving his investors and contractors in ruin.

In the end, the banks stopped lending to Trump properties and projects. They had been burned too many times. But Trump had been doing something else during the 1980’s and 90’s. He had been making himself famous. He became known for wealth and opulence, among other things.

So when he could borrow no more, he changed his business model. Instead of building a project himself, he leased his NAME to others. This way he did not have to borrow, or even build the project. While those doing so branded it a “Trump Property” by paying him for the use of his name.

Evidently, many of the people paying for his name are doing so for nefarious purposes. In the old days, mobsters would launder their money from illegal operations (gambling, prostitution) through restaurants. It was impossible to tell how much a restaurant was really bring in, as it used to be a cash business. Mobsters could then say that their money came from their “restaurant business”. Real Estate is a much better way to launder money. A lot more money is involved in the construction, sale, and re-sale of real estate than in the operation of an eatery.

I don’t believe that Trump is any kind of super successful businessman. I think that he figured out how to game the system, nothing more. He has produced little of anything of lasting value. He is, however, a master showman. He showed very early on that he knows how to get his name in the media and keep it there. He knows how to work a crowd. And he knows how to tell people things they want to hear. So he’s a very good politician.


Conclusions
Trump is just as crooked as any other politician. He is in politics for himself. Just as most politicians are.

I don't believe Trump's word on his personal worth. Note that he could not post the funds required by the Civil Case that he lost. Note also that banks will not lend anything to Trump, as he has burned them too often.

Trump is now in the race to get revenge. Revenge against those that didn't buy into his story of the last election being stolen (and that includes numerous republicans and conservatives), revenge against those that have attacked him in court (and I have to agree that the NY case was spurious in that no underlying crime - the basis for the case - existed), and revenge against those that hate him to the point that they compromised his physical security and have made physical threats against him (and in this he is actually justified).

The CRUCIAL point in all of this is that we have to ALWAYS look at the facts and draw logical conclusions. REGARDLESS of whether we "like" or "dislike" the person involved or their politics.

BOTH SIDES, Democrat and Republican, have failed and continue to fail the country and the American people.

We have not had a great American president since Eisenhower. We aren't going to get a good one again anytime soon. At least not by the processes both corrupt parties have engineered to deprive the American people of a desirable alternative .

[Navigator]

As bad as I just painted Trump to be, the Democrats are even worse.

Bob, our resident liberal, has said that the Democrats get votes by helping people. If he means that they get votes by giving people money, he is correct. This goes back to FDR, who was able to do this because the government in his day didn't have any debt.

Since then, government deficits have ballooned to the point that the economy as we know it is doomed. Republicans abandoned fiscal responsibility under Reagan, and both Bush and Trump are seriously complicit in running up government deficits, although they are both outclassed by Obama and Biden.

Kamala is an extreme left liberal. Here are her stated positions (courtesy of John LeFevre):

[note - I left off #20 - election denier, as even Trumps AG stated that there was no evidence of the 2020 election being "stolen". I will go with the evidence every time, whether it points to something being true that I wish wasn't or not]

1. Promises to ban fracking and offshore drilling
2. Supports mediocrity over merit: "equal outcomes for all"
3. Wants more big government / deficit spending
4. Supports free healthcare and housing for illegals
5. Hoax peddler (Smollett, Charlottesville, Border agents whipped migrants, Russiagate, Biden is healthy)
6. Wants more funding for foreign wars
7. Race-baiter
8. BLM supporter
9. Supported Defund the Police
10. Supports woke DEI ideology
11. Was ranked as the "most liberal" Senator (100/100)
12. Wants to pack the Supreme Court
13. Supports ending the filibuster to pass radical legislation
14. Climate change zealot
15. Supports open borders
16. Wants to abolish ICE
17. Wants the government to legislate what you eat, including less red meat
18. Supports restricting the 2nd Amendment
19. Wants to replace private insurance with universal healthcare

I would also add that she shows her incompetence almost every time she opens her mouth, and that, yes, she engaged in sexual affairs to jump start her career (I note that Trump's personal morals are just as bad).

In addition, the Democrat party is going to give her their nomination without anyone voting on Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate in their primary process. Had there been an actual primary process she would have had no chance against viable opponents (just like in 2020).

If elected, she would just be a puppet of the same elitist clique that has been pulling the strings for an incapacitated Biden (minus Jill and Hunter, who we have hopefully seen the last of).

[Trevor]

I expect that whoever wins in November is going to contend with a major war, and at this point, I think Trump is going to be the victor in November. However bad he might be, Harris is going to have a lot of trouble escaping being the most liberal member of the Senate. I expect every ad from now until November will reference her support of the Green new Deal, Abolishing ICE, and everything else Navigator mentioned above. If she had the charisma of, say Bill Clinton, she'd have a good chance to do it, but she doesn't. Her approval plummets whenever she enters the spotlight.

The last good President I'd cite that we had is Reagan, and he was far from perfect. Overall, I'd rate him around a "B." If we're talking about character, I'd rank Jimmy Carter highly, but he was not up to the job of being President. It's possible that Trump could end up being a new FDR when the time comes, but it's not something I'd care to gamble on.
XXXXXXXXXX

Almost all the talk I keep hearing is "Cold War II." I expect that's because, for the people in charge today, the Cold War is what they remember. They don't remember the terrible events of the 1930s and 1940s, and since it happened before they were born, it's not important. Very few have any living memory of it and even they would have been children.

A third world war seems impossible, but almost everyone failed to believe that Hitler was serious about his wars of aggression. Even in 1939, they could have marched into Western Germany, and by their own admission, they would have collapsed. But they really, really didn't want to fight another war. We don't, either, but I don't expect we'll get a choice.

I haven't forgotten the shock Europeans experienced when Putin's invasion of Ukraine began. He'd built up his military for months, made increasingly bellicose speeches, but they did nothing. They made half-hearted threats of sanctions, talked about the "right side of history", as if a man like Putin gives a damn about that, then walked back even some of those threats. Little wonder he didn't take them seriously. In the days and weeks beforehand, no one I know believed that he was serious, considering it insane, likely to be mere saber-rattling.

We'll be every bit as shocked when Xi makes a move on Taiwan. Unlike Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and China's other neighbors are making preparations. We've taken a few steps, but nowhere near enough. Both sides are likely to be out of munitions within a few weeks, so it's not going to be a short war. Despite my lack of suitableness for it, I don't doubt I'll be fighting in this conflict at some point.

The more complicated the plan, the more that can go wrong, and the CCP doesn't strike me as very competent. That being said, I expect the initial strike will cause a lot of damage, though I don't think nuclear weapons, even tactical, will be used in the early stages.

[Trevor]

For the last several months, I've been watching videos by Whatifaltist, and while I'm not sure whether he's right, he's at least interesting to listen to. He's been predicting both a third world war and civil war. I'm truly hoping he's wrong about the latter, but there are interesting parallels between the modern U.S. and the Roman Republic.

[Navigator]

I agree that Trump will most likely win, especially if the Dems stick with Kamala. Any non-scripted event featuring her will turn into a debacle. High likelihood of her doing no better than Biden in a debate.

Hopefully Trump will step up. He was a good president in 2017/18, especially as he surrounded himself initially with the good people (like Mathis and McMaster). Then he turned on people who he thought weren't loyal enough. Like Mathis and McMaster, and replaced them with much less capable people.

This time around, I fear he will surround himself with psychophants who are not up to their jobs, especially not during a crisis (worse yet a major war).

Kamala and the Obama gang would be much much worse. Look at the current National Security Advisor.

Yes, the CCP is incompetent, but they will unleash the chaos of war, and, as always, its a Pandora's Box. And you are right that it will last a lot longer than anyone expects.

[guest]

Trump is just as crooked as any other politician. He is in politics for himself. Just as most politicians are.

Interesting points on his businesses. I haven't looked that deep into it, and wouldn't know whose accounts on the subject would be accurate.

Regardless of his claimed net worth, he still is a high net worth individual and has had plenty of business success. Apparently he has operated within the law, otherwise he would've been tried and convicted some time in his life (beyond random lawsuits here and there). And has had no trouble from the IRS.

I don't worship the guy but still have hope he can get back in office and shed some light on how corrupt DC is, although he wasn't successful at that in his first term.