I'm not sure in what sense she "endorses" him. I suspect the BBC is
trying to connect Liz Truss' failure to outlast a lettuce to Donald Trump.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68821646

'The world was safer when Donald Trump was President'

On 16 Apr 2024 01:44:52 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure in what sense she "endorses" him. I suspect the BBC is
> trying to connect Liz Truss' failure to outlast a lettuce to Donald
> Trump.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68821646

I believe it was the "Do you hope he wins again in the Autumn?", "Yes I do". Coupled with all the praise of Trump in her book.

> 'The world was safer when Donald Trump was President'

I am not convinced it was. Trump was threatening to nuke North Korea and Iran.

His trade war with China has made the world more dangerous. Not least because it forced China to buck her ideas up, become a sovereign nation not dependent on US products. He lost America all the soft-leverage they had over China.

He allowed over half a million Americans to die because of covid, which has led to over a million American deaths in total.

He was also in charge when he encouraged domestic terrorists to storm Capitol Hill, sought to overthrow American democracy.

I imagine 'having the orange nutjob at the helm' did make other countries more nervous about what they could do, perhaps did restrain them.

But does having the world fear that Trump may launch nukes on a whim make the world safer ?

And does being bestest pals with dictators and despots, backing them in what they do, make the world safer ? I guess it depends how you define "safer".

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:16:02 +0100
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> > 'The world was safer when Donald Trump was President'
>
> I am not convinced it was.

And how is it any less safe under Biden ?

The argument is usually that its Biden's weakness which has allowed others to act and endanger the world order. But what weakness ?

Biden is the one wanting to arm Ukraine. Republicans are blocking that on the bidding of Trump.

Is Trump's surrender deal of handing Ukrainian lands to Russia a sign of Trump's strength ? NATO have defined that as a win for Russia which threatens Europe and the world, say it will empower Putin.

Biden wants to ban TikTok because it's a threat to America's national security and economy. Trump wanted the same, accepts it is such a danger, but is now against a ban and is encouraging Republicans to block that.

Biden is trying to calm Israel, prevent a war with Iran. Trump and Republicans want an all-out war with Iran.

NATO and the west are shitting bricks at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Why is that ?

It's because Trump is an America First isolationist, not a team player. His 'it's every man for himself' does not make the world a safer place.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2024 01:44:52 GMT
> TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure in what sense she "endorses" him. I suspect the BBC is
>> trying to connect Liz Truss' failure to outlast a lettuce to Donald
>> Trump.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68821646
>
> I believe it was the "Do you hope he wins again in the Autumn?", "Yes I do". Coupled with all the praise of Trump in her book.
>
>
>> 'The world was safer when Donald Trump was President'

> I imagine
> I guess

STFU, amateur speculator - We already know what you imagine

> I can slaughter Jews if you want, and I can do it far nearer to home. I can
> deliver you a veritable bloodbath of dead Jews if you want; men, women and
> children,. Even their pets too, if that's what you want. How about we start
> with your wife ?
>
> Or maybe you are hoping that Israel will be your proxy killing machine ?
>
> Well fuck you George. I know you are sick in mind and body and maybe that's
> because the God you don't believe in has chosen to lay you low like the
> worthless piece of shit you are. You want to see blood flowing ? That can be
> arranged. Maybe I should come round and wipe the whole sickening stain of
> the Yates family away, and show you and your Zionist war-mongering buddies
> exactly what this death and destruction you are cheer-leading for really
> means ? What do you think Ron ?

--
"The narrower the view, the sharper the focus" [my quote]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:16:02 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:

> On 16 Apr 2024 01:44:52 GMT TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure in what sense she "endorses" him. I suspect the BBC is
>> trying to connect Liz Truss' failure to outlast a lettuce to Donald
>> Trump.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68821646
>
> I believe it was the "Do you hope he wins again in the Autumn?", "Yes I
> do". Coupled with all the praise of Trump in her book.
>
>
>> 'The world was safer when Donald Trump was President'
>
> I am not convinced it was. Trump was threatening to nuke North Korea and
> Iran.
>
> His trade war with China has made the world more dangerous. Not least
> because it forced China to buck her ideas up, become a sovereign nation
> not dependent on US products. He lost America all the soft-leverage they
> had over China.
>
> He allowed over half a million Americans to die because of covid, which
> has led to over a million American deaths in total.

I don't think that's fair. No-one was really able to even work out what
made someone vulnerable. Was it vitamin D? Was it being diabetic or
overweight? etc. I think lockdowns helped because they allowed time for
the most lethal strain to be replaces with less dangerous variants
although they went on a bit too long.

Really we were reduced to doing what we still do in different ways in
response to disease - cut off the affected limb. There was no actual
leadership involved. We all hid and waited for it to be over.

>
> He was also in charge when he encouraged domestic terrorists to storm
> Capitol Hill, sought to overthrow American democracy.

I don't think he actually did that but he got pretty close. I don't think
someone that was always under threat himself while in power would want to
start a prescedent of Capitol Hill storming. He took things to the edge
to demonstrate his support - something he was always talking about at his
rallies - then tried to stand everyone down before things got too crazy.
It's also still not clear how many of the rioters were actually invited in.

He ended up making himself a massive hostage to fortune and fortune wasn't
with him that day.

>
> I imagine 'having the orange nutjob at the helm' did make other
> countries more nervous about what they could do, perhaps did restrain
> them.
>
> But does having the world fear that Trump may launch nukes on a whim
> make the world safer ?
>
> And does being bestest pals with dictators and despots, backing them in
> what they do, make the world safer ? I guess it depends how you define
> "safer".

I suppose if he is pals with any of the dictators that means he could
communicate more freely. Did you have a problem with Reagan being
friendly with Gorbachev? I felt safer. It was a start.

https://youtu.be/7ciy5R-tLiE?t=4480

The other leaders would have something worth preserving with good will -
provided it wasn't all once-sided. He'd be more likely to get a prisoner
released, he'd be more likely to create an environment where a mistake
would be less likely to lead to disaster.

I would think you would favour that way of doing thigns over hostility.

On 16 Apr 2024 21:35:35 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:16:02 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
> > On 16 Apr 2024 01:44:52 GMT TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure in what sense she "endorses" him. I suspect the BBC
> >> is trying to connect Liz Truss' failure to outlast a lettuce to
> >> Donald Trump.
> >>
> >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68821646
> >
> > I believe it was the "Do you hope he wins again in the Autumn?",
> > "Yes I do". Coupled with all the praise of Trump in her book.
> >
> >
> >> 'The world was safer when Donald Trump was President'
> >
> > I am not convinced it was. Trump was threatening to nuke North
> > Korea and Iran.
> >
> > His trade war with China has made the world more dangerous. Not
> > least because it forced China to buck her ideas up, become a
> > sovereign nation not dependent on US products. He lost America all
> > the soft-leverage they had over China.
> >
> > He allowed over half a million Americans to die because of covid,
> > which has led to over a million American deaths in total.
>
> I don't think that's fair. No-one was really able to even work out
> what made someone vulnerable. Was it vitamin D? Was it being
> diabetic or overweight? etc. I think lockdowns helped because they
> allowed time for the most lethal strain to be replaces with less
> dangerous variants although they went on a bit too long.

I think it is justified. He lied that it was just "Kung Flu", would be over in mere days, when he knew that it wouldn't be. In a brazen act of racism he prevented Chinese entering the country while allowing Americans from China in and infected Europeans in. He was against lockdowns and mask mandates.

By the end his term he had caused half a million deaths. Other countries who had taken action, did the right thing, did what Trump could have done but chose not to, had mere handfuls.

> Really we were reduced to doing what we still do in different ways in
> response to disease - cut off the affected limb. There was no actual
> leadership involved. We all hid and waited for it to be over.

You are right; there was no leadership, particularly in America.

> > He was also in charge when he encouraged domestic terrorists to
> > storm Capitol Hill, sought to overthrow American democracy.
>
> I don't think he actually did that but he got pretty close. I don't
> think someone that was always under threat himself while in power
> would want to start a prescedent of Capitol Hill storming. He took
> things to the edge to demonstrate his support - something he was
> always talking about at his rallies - then tried to stand everyone
> down before things got too crazy. It's also still not clear how many
> of the rioters were actually invited in.

When you are arguing it "got pretty close" you might as well say "did", because it was calculated to have his loyal terorirst minions know what he was aksing for while pretending he never asked for that.

> He ended up making himself a massive hostage to fortune and fortune
> wasn't with him that day.

Hostage to inciting terrorism and trying to overthrow democracy.

> > I imagine 'having the orange nutjob at the helm' did make other
> > countries more nervous about what they could do, perhaps did
> > restrain them.
> >
> > But does having the world fear that Trump may launch nukes on a whim
> > make the world safer ?
> >
> > And does being bestest pals with dictators and despots, backing
> > them in what they do, make the world safer ? I guess it depends how
> > you define "safer".
>
>
> I suppose if he is pals with any of the dictators that means he could
> communicate more freely. Did you have a problem with Reagan being
> friendly with Gorbachev? I felt safer. It was a start.

Gorbachev was seeking peace, a reset in relationships. Putin isn't.

It's who you are friends with which count.

> https://youtu.be/7ciy5R-tLiE?t=4480
>
> The other leaders would have something worth preserving with good
> will - provided it wasn't all once-sided. He'd be more likely to get
> a prisoner released, he'd be more likely to create an environment
> where a mistake would be less likely to lead to disaster.
>
> I would think you would favour that way of doing thigns over
> hostility.

But everything he does is backed up with hostility and threats. That's why right-wingers prefer him over Biden.

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:48:43 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:

> Gorbachev was seeking peace, a reset in relationships. Putin isn't.
>
> It's who you are friends with which count.
>

Yes and no. It also depends on what end is desired. Thatcher said she
could 'do business' with Gorbachev. She could get on with him 'well
enough'. Maybe there's room for a grudging respect.

>
>> https://youtu.be/7ciy5R-tLiE?t=4480
>>
>> The other leaders would have something worth preserving with good will
>> - provided it wasn't all once-sided. He'd be more likely to get a
>> prisoner released, he'd be more likely to create an environment where a
>> mistake would be less likely to lead to disaster.
>>
>> I would think you would favour that way of doing thigns over hostility.
>
> But everything he does is backed up with hostility and threats. That's
> why right-wingers prefer him over Biden.

That way of doing things has probably kept the peace for decades via MAD
(although it comes along with a gamble that mistakes will be caught before
they kill everyone).

Good will - even fake good will - is better than menace. I'd rather NK
for example talk with Trump over a NK Big Mac than open negotiations with
a missile test over Tokyo.

I think this is largely a made-up issue. I don't think anyone really
thinks Trump is getting ready to sell America out to Putin. I don't think
he's got an order for 20 million brown shirts pending either. He'll
probably win, he'll have his time, he'll get things doe and screw up a few
other things then he'll be gone and someone else will take over.

If he gets us all killed you can say you were right!

On 18 Apr 2024 00:59:25 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think this is largely a made-up issue. I don't think anyone really
> thinks Trump is getting ready to sell America out to Putin.

It depends on how you measure selling out.

Is forcing Ukraine to lose in a surrender deal selling out ? Is refusing to ban TikTok which he says is a danger to America's national security and economy not selling out ?

Did he not sell out America when he forced China to stand on her own two feet and stop being depended on America and the west ? Did he not sell out America when he relinquished the soft-power America had ?

> I don't
> think he's got an order for 20 million brown shirts pending either.

January 6th and his stance on Black Lives Matters, Mexicans, gays, transexuals and others, suggests otherwise.

But he won't have to order 20 million brown shirts; his base already have their own. We saw that when those "good people", as Trump called them, marched through Charlottesville, attacked the police and committed murder.

> He'll probably win, he'll have his time, he'll get things doe and
> screw up a few other things then he'll be gone and someone else will
> take over.

If you look back at his last term he did very little of what he promised to do.

As to him winning; I also believe he will but it's hard to say.

Neither Trump nor Biden are fit to hold office and 70% of Americans agree, don't want this election.

It will likely fall to 'anyone but the other guy' votes and how many party supporters won't vote for their party's candidates. Both Trump and Biden have significant party opposition to them, probably 40% on each side.

Hardcore party support is just 30% for each at the best of times, likely less than 20% as it stands.

And America, like the UK, has a rigged electoral system which allows the candidate with fewest votes to claim victory. Clinton received far more votes than Trump when he won in 2016.

Voters not turning out, votes for JFK or other independents, could easily swing things either way.

> If he gets us all killed you can say you were right!

That's quite a gamble you are making there.

If you genuinely do believe that Ukraine losing is the preface to War on Europe then how do you reconcile that with Trump's plan to end the war by surrendering annexed land to Russia ?

And what if his support for Israel, which goes much deeper than Biden's, has America actively helping Israel to wipe Iran and other countries off the map ?

At least Ukraine and Israel have shown Biden has some concern for outcomes. Trump is much more gung-ho about launching nukes and fuck the consequences.

His being bestest pals with Putin will avoid nuclear conflict with Russia. It's those he's not pals with where the problem lies.

Are you really confident that his mouthing off won't plunge us into a pre-emptive Armageddon ?

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:20:35 +0100
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> Did he not sell out America when he forced China to stand on her own
> two feet and stop being depended on America and the west ? Did he not
> sell out America when he relinquished the soft-power America had ?

And, whilst not necessarily terminal, that is potentially destroying the existing world order, its stability and security ...

https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/18/blackhat_koh_splinternet/

<quote>

One of the biggest challenges Singapore faces is the potential for a split between tech stacks developed and used by China and the West, according to the island nation's Cyber Security Administration chief executive David Koh.

</quote>

The path to peace and harmony, as Einstein and so many others believe, lies through our being a 'one world village', isn't achieved through isolationalism and non-cooperation.

If you only have friends there is no one to go to war with.

That's why America is so determined to keep enemies, make new ones.

The Happy Hippy wrote:

> The path to peace and harmony,

Uh huh, renowned humanitarian that you are ,,,

> I can slaughter Jews if you want, and I can do it far nearer to home. I can
> deliver you a veritable bloodbath of dead Jews if you want; men, women and
> children,. Even their pets too, if that's what you want. How about we start
> with your wife ?
>
> Or maybe you are hoping that Israel will be your proxy killing machine ?
>
> Well fuck you George. I know you are sick in mind and body and maybe that's
> because the God you don't believe in has chosen to lay you low like the
> worthless piece of shit you are. You want to see blood flowing ? That can be
> arranged. Maybe I should come round and wipe the whole sickening stain of
> the Yates family away, and show you and your Zionist war-mongering buddies
> exactly what this death and destruction you are cheer-leading for really
> means ? What do you think Ron ?

--
"The narrower the view, the sharper the focus" [my quote]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:25:49 -0400
Jesse <zo@so.org> wrote:

<quote>

If broads are allowed to expose themselves in public, I think I
should have the same right. If they breast feed on a park bench, I
should legally be allowed to masturbate right next to them.

</quote>