ForumGarden

spot;1502757 wrote: You think there's a reasonable route by which a recognizable form of World War Two would have happened, had the German Axis won the Great War? A Fascist-governed Germany by the end of the 1930s? I'd be interested to know why you think that. All the pressures which led to the rise of Fascism in Germany would have been entirely absent.


Had the german axis as you call it won ww1 there would nwever have been a nazi takeover the kaiser would still have been in charge. ww1 was the last fling of the european empires the majority of the soldiers that fought in it did not even have the right to vote. The empires might have fought again but not imo in form ww2 actually took place. America got involved in ww1 because it suited them just as it did in ww2. Had hitler not declared war on the US it is unlikely they would have got involved in the european war given the hostility towards the UK in comgress. US and Japan was a clash of empire not ideology.

I don't see it as a Death Threat at all. However, I do see assassination as a very real possibility - more of a probability. I don't think I know of any previous President Elects as having so many protests made against their election, even before the inauguration - or even before the result has even been ratified by the Electoral College.

I'm really looking forward to that moment when Security see the gunman & shout out "Donald, Duck".

gmc;1502763 wrote: Had the german axis as you call it won ww1 there would nwever have been a nazi takeover the kaiser would still have been in charge. ww1 was the last fling of the european empires the majority of the soldiers that fought in it did not even have the right to vote. The empires might have fought again but not imo in form ww2 actually took place. America got involved in ww1 because it suited them just as it did in ww2. Had hitler not declared war on the US it is unlikely they would have got involved in the european war given the hostility towards the UK in comgress. US and Japan was a clash of empire not ideology.


There you go then.

Exactly what I said.

The German Axis is what everyone called it, that or "The Axis Powers". It's all to do with the railways and switching armies between the Eastern and Western fronts. They pivoted on an axis.

I have a technical question.

Why are Presidential security teams trained to keep their fists in front of their tits? There has to be a reason for this.

Attached files

Perhaps they recruit them from former flashers.

spot;1502782 wrote: There you go then.

Exactly what I said.

The German Axis is what everyone called it, that or "The Axis Powers". It's all to do with the railways and switching armies between the Eastern and Western fronts. They pivoted on an axis.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers

Axis powers, the coalition headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan that opposed the Allied powers in World War II. The alliance originated in a series of agreements between Germany and Italy, followed by the proclamation of an “axis binding Rome and Berlin (October 25, 1936), with the two powers claiming that the world would henceforth rotate on the Rome-Berlin axis. This was followed by the German-Japanese Anti-Comintern Pact against the Soviet Union (November 25, 1936).

I'd thought the use of Axis Powers dated from the Great War but I'm wrong, as you say, it's anachronistic. At the time the term was the Central Powers.

spot;1502805 wrote: I have a technical question.

Why are Presidential security teams trained to keep their fists in front of their tits? There has to be a reason for this.


Tits ??? Why doesn't the censor censor that word ?

They are holding their hands high, close to concealed weapons under their jackets.

The Earp brothers never looked like that, and none of them ever left home without accessible weaponry. I doubt whether they looked like prize dickheads either.

You are becoming a potty mouth Spot......thought I was down the local there for a while.

spot;1502805 wrote: I have a technical question.

Why are Presidential security teams trained to keep their fists in front of their tits? There has to be a reason for this.


I believe that they are actually holding on to their jackets so that they can quickly open it and grab their firearm, if needed.

Can they not have their firearm on a spring in their sleeve? Surely that's quicker to aim and fire.

spot;1502840 wrote: Can they not have their firearm on a spring in their sleeve? Surely that's quicker to aim and fire.


Hard to stuff an Heckler & Koch MP5 up your sleeve.

I would not know. I have not tried. I do know there are quick-draw sprung sleeve releases for personal firearms though.

Why can't they just carry the damned things openly? It's not as though anyone would be surprised that they have them. It would save them from their prattish posturing.

spot;1502843 wrote: I would not know. I have not tried. I do know there are quick-draw sprung sleeve releases for personal firearms though.


Had to look that up. Apparently the Secret Service also does not think much of such an idea.

spot;1502843 wrote: Why can't they just carry the damned things openly? It's not as though anyone would be surprised that they have them. It would save them from their prattish posturing.


Same reason I carry concealed. Don't need the attention.

tude dog;1502844 wrote: Don't need the attention.
But you don't walk around like a permanently terrified welterweight either.

Don't sweat the small stuff Spot.

spot;1502845 wrote: But you don't walk around like a permanently terrified welterweight either.


Don't I?

Who does?

It would seem to me seeing armed Secret Service would take all the attention away from the person they are guarding.

I could see it now if the SS started openly carried their weapons. All the commentary comparing us to third would nations. It gives the appearance of instability.

Optics

The time for appearing stable is long gone.

spot;1502727 wrote: Perhaps someone could tell me whether the final sentence here qualifies as a death threat - I can't see any other way of interpreting the words.What makes me cautiously optimistic about my successor and the shift from campaign to governance is there is something about the solemn responsibilities of that office, the extraordinary demands that are placed on the United States not just by its own people but by people around the world, that forces you to focus, Obama said.

“That demands seriousness. And if you’re not serious about the job, then you probably won’t be there very long.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -russia“

It could be more in the way of insight as to why Obama turned into such a wimp so early on.

As one who had hoped for something better from Obama, It's an understandable fear. In a time and place and job where everything is a negotiation, those who might have been martyred heroes of the past see more of a benefit in another day.

Can't really blame them either. I doubt I'd leave my loved ones behind without whatever it is I possess that can benefit them in their survival.

spot;1502805 wrote: I have a technical question.

Why are Presidential security teams trained to keep their fists in front of their tits? There has to be a reason for this.I've read that they are at the ready similar to a karate stance to swipe away hands of would be attackers, carrying knives perhaps. Otherwise they'd appear a bit silly adopting a Bruce Lee type posture constantly.

spot;1502850 wrote: The time for appearing stable is long gone.I think we Americans mostly agree. We've turned to Donald Trump to fix it.

"Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!"

Well it has begun!!!!! China has shut down its shipping!... jobs are already been sacrificed.... thanks guys!!!!

Yeah, NOW IM ANGRY WITH YOU!

You're not hearing THAT in your news broadcasts are ya?

If nobody's going to buy anything, and you want to keep your transport business, lay up the ships early.

Have you no links at all for the story?

Who says Trump wont have a positive impact on the environment?

Ahso!;1502875 wrote: Who says Trump wont have a positive impact on the environment?


Trump ?

This is what Trump says: whether or not he's lying is yet to be seen Donald Trump wrote: From an environmental standpoint, my priorities are very simple: clean air and clean water.


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... nergy-plan

"Here’s what it comes down to.

Wealth versus poverty."

"We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs."

"Any future regulation will go through a simple test: is this regulation good for the American worker? If it doesn’t pass this test, the rule will not be approved."

I don't know what's in Trump's head, however from reading things he's said, he seems to be of the opinion that America has to get out from under Middle East oil consumption. I agree with that.

We're paying too high a price to Saudi Arabia for their oil. They've got us doing all their killing and regime changing for them. This is where the deal Obama did with Iran and other countries comes into play too. That deal allows us to be less dependent on SA, while, at the same time, keeping Iran's nuclear program doing what Iran claims it's for.

America has to decide for itself what energy sources we are going to use and allow the consequences of that decision to be felt directly by us. That is the only chance the American people have of truly understanding the price of continuing the use of fossil fuels. If we are serious about wind and other alternatives then we've better get around to creating both them and the market infrastructure that supports them.

Trump appears to want us to stand on our own two feet. It's time we did just that, IMO.

Ahso!;1502892 wrote: I don't know what's in Trump's head, however from reading things he's said, he seems to be of the opinion that America has to get out from under Middle East oil consumption. I agree with that.

We're paying too high a price to Saudi Arabia for their oil. They've got us doing all their killing and regime changing for them. This is where the deal Obama did with Iran and other countries comes into play too. That deal allows us to be less dependent on SA, while, at the same time, keeping Iran's nuclear program doing what Iran claims it's for.

America has to decide for itself what energy sources we are going to use and allow the consequences of that decision to be felt directly by us. That is the only chance the American people have of truly understanding the price of continuing the use of fossil fuels. If we are serious about wind and other alternatives then we've better get around to creating both them and the market infrastructure that supports them.

Trump appears to want us to stand on our own two feet. It's time we did just that, IMO.


Well, actually, the US is no longer dependent on Saudi Oil. We have become a net exporter of petroleum. And thanks to the Russians, global oil prices are at an all time low. We buy oil from the Saudis because it is cheaper than producing our own at the moment. The Saudis may still have the largest reserve of petroleum in the world, but OPEC is broken, and they are forced to sell at bargain prices. The enormous reserve of natural gas we have, and the Bakken fields in North Dakota should keep us out of the Saudi clutches for decades. Plus rumors are that a new field in Texas may make the Saudis completely irrelevant.

So they steal back the sacred lands from the Native Americans & pollute their water supplies in order to transport it.

FourPart;1502902 wrote: So they steal back the sacred lands from the Native Americans & pollute their water supplies in order to transport it.


Interesting, that.

The project is severely behind schedule, and the investors will pull out their money if it's not finished on time.

At this point, by the time they finish the thing, there'll be no customers.

The BBC reports today that there is limited enthusiasm among the performing fraternity to stand up at the Inauguration and be thereafter regarded as a supporter of the new incumbent.

I have a suggestion for the organizers. V.I.C. would without doubt be delighted for the invite if the entire Trump family lines up and joins him in a performance of Wobble after the swearing in.



Line dancing, of which Wobble is a prime instance, would definitely suit the times we will soon live in."It's as if a band onstage is just a jukebox for the dancers. It kills any semblance of music as an art form and strips away any personal statement," says Chris Hillman, who fronts the Desert Rose Band. "It's also very Teutonic and militaristic. It's lining up like a bunch of Nazi storm troopers, everybody lifting up their legs at the same time--like marching to a Nuremberg rally."

THE SCENE : The Teutonic Two-Step Blues - latimes

"It's got a good beat and it's easy to dance to."

This is going to go down in history as the Alfred E. Neuman Presidency. What on earth does he think he's doing with these insane tweets and the horrific amoral killers he's promoting into offices of state?

That's primarily a reference to General Mattis, in case anyone missed it. At least General Abizaid is still sidelined and shunned.

Alfred's presidential campaign slogan was "You could do worse!" but this time one fails to see how.

What, me worry?

It looks to me like he's doing what one might expect a person running a business to do - putting muscle-heads in charge of security.

Trump is probably looking at all this government stuff simplistically.

spot;1504204 wrote: this is going to go down in history as the alfred e. Neuman presidency. What on earth does he think he's doing with these insane tweets and the horrific amoral killers he's promoting into offices of state?

That's primarily a reference to general mattis, in case anyone missed it. At least general abizaid is still sidelined and shunned.

Alfred's presidential campaign slogan was "you could do worse!" but this time one fails to see how.

What, me worry?


I Told You So; I Warned You Your Assessment of Trump Was Wrong

I really don't think any Trump supporters are surprised by what he's been doing.

He's assembling what he considers to be a super-duper sales team to represent US business interests outside the country; he's assembling people he considers policy wonks and lawyers as his legal team; and he's assembling muscle-heads as security.

This is exactly what his supporters wanted in a president.

The kicker Trump provides is that he acts like a regular guy tweeting and talking off the cuff, and allowing himself to be, in effect, accessible to his supporters.

The other thing Trump represents to his supporters is the fact that he's flawed and hasn't shied away from making some really tough decisions in life and running his business. Decisions like not paying people for performing inferior work; lying about what he does with his money in order to beat the system; avoiding paying taxes; having a trophy wife; spoiling the hell out the kids; etc...

Trump's supporters identify with these things.

AnneBoleyn;1504212 wrote: I Told You So; I Warned You Your Assessment of Trump Was Wrong


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here.

My sole concern is what America under President Trump's leadership does to the rest of the world and I'm quite certain it will be less harmful than a Hillary Clinton administration would have been.

That he's already turning his Presidency into comic opera is just icing on the cake.

As for the dishonorable General Mattis, it's more than ten years since I wrote it but http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... -wars.html is still just as relevant today as it was at the time. The man has no business being in command of anyone, he's self-delusional.

spot;1504220 wrote: I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here.

My sole concern is what America under President Trump's leadership does to the rest of the world and I'm quite certain it will be less harmful than a Hillary Clinton administration would have been.

That he's already turning his Presidency into comic opera is just icing on the cake.

As for the dishonorable General Mattis, it's more than ten years since I wrote it but http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... -wars.html is still just as relevant today as it was at the time. The man has no business being in command of anyone, he's self-delusional.


THAT comment probably applies to Trump and his entire proposed cabinet.

LarsMac;1504224 wrote: THAT comment probably applies to Trump and his entire proposed cabinet.




I am not happy with this guy, but considering the alternative.

I love watching the Demos going bonkers.

spot;1504220 wrote: I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here.

My sole concern is what America under President Trump's leadership does to the rest of the world and I'm quite certain it will be less harmful than a Hillary Clinton administration would have been.

That he's already turning his Presidency into comic opera is just icing on the cake.

As for the dishonorable General Mattis, it's more than ten years since I wrote it but http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... -wars.html is still just as relevant today as it was at the time. The man has no business being in command of anyone, he's self-delusional.


Quite certain, are you? Fasten your seat belt. You can't be quite certain of anything.

tude dog;1504233 wrote:

I am not happy with this guy, but considering the alternative.

I love watching the Demos going bonkers.


Does that include your wife?

AnneBoleyn;1504235 wrote: Does that include your wife?


The Mrs is upset to be sure, but never bonkers, like in being stupid about it.

AnneBoleyn;1504234 wrote: Quite certain, are you? Fasten your seat belt. You can't be quite certain of anything.


You forget I've seen what Hillary Clinton did with American foreign policy.

It appears Clinton was telling Obama what was what in fact. Talk about someone who was over his head in the oval office. Obama's first term was almost a complete rehiring of the Bubba administration.

As soon as I saw that I regretted voting for Obama. Didn't vote for him in 2012 though.

It's a done deal now. The electoral votes are in.

spot;1504242 wrote: You forget I've seen what Hillary Clinton did with American foreign policy.


Right. You forget you can't see the future.

AnneBoleyn;1504257 wrote: Right. You forget you can't see the future.


Are you suggesting Hillary Clinton would have laid off slapping the rest of the world around and reined in her killers had she won the Presidency? As a display of faith on your part it might work, but as rational thinking it's mere unjustifiable optimism.

Now is the future of Hillary Clinton's time spent as secretary of state. Here's the future you refer to, Anne. Take a look!

10+ Before-And-After Pics Reveal What War Did To The Largest City In Syria | Bored Panda

How would you like to be sitting in your NY apartment to look out the window and see bombs reigning down on your city full of neighbors, friends and relatives? All being the product and consequence of a fanciful ideal of some political think thank from another country? Surely, this is not the kind of abortion policy you support? Nor is it a fair trade off for a different kind of abortion or bathroom rights policy here at home.

I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to a woman's right to choose. However, to vote for a politician who claims to be willing to protect that right and who can be responsible for the policy of damage done in those photos is a trade off of pure evil. I refuse to be a party in such a deal.

Donald Trump is an ass, there's no question about that, but what we don't know about his policies compared to what we do know about Clinton's is worth the gamble, IMO. I would rather have had Stein as president, but it is what it is now.

If Trump turns out to be the final straw in a Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama line of horrific presidents regarding foreign policy, then so be it, because Clinton certainly was.