Well said. I agree. I think he will run out of steam. He's an old man focused on revenge & retribution and does not have the energy or interest to shape world affairs.
This time Trump "won" with a voter suppression number in the Millions, as Greg Palast documented today. As usual the high analysts, and the low media, will not mention it.
But historically, the Trump Cheating in the 2016 Elections (just look at the exit Polls [ http://bit.ly/3xoBgr3 ] ) worked well. Few media commented on the devastating exit polls.
And the bi-partisanship at any price Obama convinced Clinton not to challenge it. ,
As a consequence, Trump went raving crazy, when in 2020 the machines were working even in black districts, and the voters did not have to go home without having voted after standing 8 hours in the cold.
Why don't you analyze and interpret what greg Palast found this time. I don't know any masterstroke to fix it, but just ignoring it, totschweigen in German, will not cure it.
Nor will not mention that is was a razor thin win, and no mandate to anything. In the actual votes counted there were 50.2% not-Trump votes compared to 48.8% Trump votes. It must be loudly touted every day that only 1/3 of eligible voters voted for Trump.
Because: looking at the eligibility votes I find that 1/3 of eligible voters voted for Trump, 1/3 voted for Harris, and 1/3 did not vote. That is 67% did not vote for Trump.
1. My views are largely in agreement with the following [I never reinvent the wheel]:
"The main research question to explore going forward asks what type of order the United States should seek over the coming decade. The answer is often taken for granted because American analysts and policymakers have a firm image in their head of "international order" as the liberal internationalist variety pushed by the United States since 1945. But order comes in many flavors, and it is not clear that the dominant model of the past 60 or 70 years can or should be the default approach going forward.
In order to develop good strategy and policy, it will be especially important to take seriously the tensions, contradictions, and dilemmas that exist among and between different visions of order."
"Mazarr, Michael J., Miranda Priebe, Andrew Radin, and Astrid Stuth Cevallos, Understanding the Current International Order. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1598.html.
2. The problem I see with our approach to internationalism and a rules-based order is that, for US, it has been a largely ala carte: we pick and choose those rules we like and ignore those we don't like. Hence, our actions appear hypocritical to many other states, and detracts our credibility.
3. I believe that Trump is correct in bringing more focus on our problems at home. In this regard, and further expounding Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ideas in “Strategic Vision” (2012), we are headed for systemic institutional obsolescence resulting from the lack of progress on political, social, and economic reform. The fact is that failure at home and the wasting of precious resources in debilitating foreign misadventures against and increasing number of (at time self-generated) enemies does not bode well for America’s self-proclaimed leadership in the world and our own future.
Thanks for the good summary of complicated issues. Perhaps he'll run out of steam, but does that mean he won't do great damage anyway?
Do you give any credence to the statement of Nikolai Patrushev, part of Putin's inner circle and former Secretary of the Security Council, after DJT's reelection, essentially saying that Russian money helped bring him back to power and he is obligated to those supporters? A couple of reliable Russia watchers have mentioned this. Thanks.
Well said. I agree. I think he will run out of steam. He's an old man focused on revenge & retribution and does not have the energy or interest to shape world affairs.
Thank you Ambassador. This was very helpful .♥️
This time Trump "won" with a voter suppression number in the Millions, as Greg Palast documented today. As usual the high analysts, and the low media, will not mention it.
But historically, the Trump Cheating in the 2016 Elections (just look at the exit Polls [ http://bit.ly/3xoBgr3 ] ) worked well. Few media commented on the devastating exit polls.
And the bi-partisanship at any price Obama convinced Clinton not to challenge it. ,
As a consequence, Trump went raving crazy, when in 2020 the machines were working even in black districts, and the voters did not have to go home without having voted after standing 8 hours in the cold.
Why don't you analyze and interpret what greg Palast found this time. I don't know any masterstroke to fix it, but just ignoring it, totschweigen in German, will not cure it.
Nor will not mention that is was a razor thin win, and no mandate to anything. In the actual votes counted there were 50.2% not-Trump votes compared to 48.8% Trump votes. It must be loudly touted every day that only 1/3 of eligible voters voted for Trump.
Because: looking at the eligibility votes I find that 1/3 of eligible voters voted for Trump, 1/3 voted for Harris, and 1/3 did not vote. That is 67% did not vote for Trump.
Very well said. Please keep up the good work.
Interesting. Couple of comments.
1. My views are largely in agreement with the following [I never reinvent the wheel]:
"The main research question to explore going forward asks what type of order the United States should seek over the coming decade. The answer is often taken for granted because American analysts and policymakers have a firm image in their head of "international order" as the liberal internationalist variety pushed by the United States since 1945. But order comes in many flavors, and it is not clear that the dominant model of the past 60 or 70 years can or should be the default approach going forward.
In order to develop good strategy and policy, it will be especially important to take seriously the tensions, contradictions, and dilemmas that exist among and between different visions of order."
"Mazarr, Michael J., Miranda Priebe, Andrew Radin, and Astrid Stuth Cevallos, Understanding the Current International Order. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1598.html.
2. The problem I see with our approach to internationalism and a rules-based order is that, for US, it has been a largely ala carte: we pick and choose those rules we like and ignore those we don't like. Hence, our actions appear hypocritical to many other states, and detracts our credibility.
3. I believe that Trump is correct in bringing more focus on our problems at home. In this regard, and further expounding Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ideas in “Strategic Vision” (2012), we are headed for systemic institutional obsolescence resulting from the lack of progress on political, social, and economic reform. The fact is that failure at home and the wasting of precious resources in debilitating foreign misadventures against and increasing number of (at time self-generated) enemies does not bode well for America’s self-proclaimed leadership in the world and our own future.
Thanks for the good summary of complicated issues. Perhaps he'll run out of steam, but does that mean he won't do great damage anyway?
Do you give any credence to the statement of Nikolai Patrushev, part of Putin's inner circle and former Secretary of the Security Council, after DJT's reelection, essentially saying that Russian money helped bring him back to power and he is obligated to those supporters? A couple of reliable Russia watchers have mentioned this. Thanks.
https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-nikolai-patrushev-donald-trump-russia-1984360
Ill take a look