XPost: rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.african, soc.culture.syria   
   XPost: soc.culture.latin-america   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article <87d1r9x072.fsf@wintersun.localdomain>,   
   jdeluise   wrote:   
   >acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:   
   >   
   >> I don't know how he is going to deal with that kind of stuff.   
   >   
   >I seem to remember you proclaiming "I know Trump" back when you were   
   >stumping for him.  I think we know what he's going to do, "Make America   
   >Great" again by bankrupting the nation building a wall, and putting boots   
   >on the ground in Syria, Iraq to "take their oil" and anywhere else he   
   >feels slighted.   
      
   "Seem" is perhaps the only word you can seek cover under.  In fact,   
   all I ever talked about regarding Trump was what was already on the   
   internet, particularly in regard to his unusual view on the subject   
   of war and peace.   
      
   I never said I knew Trump.  You're clearly making up the phrase "I   
   know Trump" in order to confuse an unsuspecting reader.  It's an   
   unjustified smear and unbecoming of someone from the R.S.T. group.   
      
   I quoted chapters and verses from the online press about him breaking   
   the taboo against talking about George W Bush's liability for bringing   
   us those unnecessary wars.  I never "stumped" for him, even as I let   
   ye all know that Trump was letting the cat out of the bag.   
      
   And I explained that that was why the neocons and the MSM hate him so   
   much.   
      
   Indeed, Trump's candidacy has managed to uproot Jeb Bush's campaign.   
      
   That is an achievement in the eyes of many of Trump's supporters.   
      
   I can see that you don't like Trump.  In fact, from day one, your   
   reaction to my post was the frivolous question about his "rug",   
   remember?   
      
   Sheesh, you are not alone - neocons don't like Trump.  And they don't   
   because they don't know what he's going to do.  With an unknown at the   
   helms, their agenda of interventionist regime change wars and liberal   
   aggression will be at risk.  The neocons fear they will no longer be   
   able to pull the string, so to speak.   
      
   For one thing, Trump is not beholden to any donor group, at least not   
   to our knowledge at this moment.  For another, Trump has broken the   
   neocon taboo against criticizing the wars G W Bush waged under false   
   pretenses.  They've been saying: "Oh, it's not worth it."  Or: "Oh,   
   it's just false intelligence - not Bush's fault."  Or: "Saddam was a   
   monster and the world is better off by killing him."  They never   
   address the question of why so many Middle Easterners had to be dead,   
   or homeless.  The neocon dogma is that a interventionist regime change   
   war and liberal aggression makes the world a better place - never mind   
   the human costs, the environmental costs, and the cost on our economy!   
      
   Building a wall isn't nearly going to bankrupt our country as the wars   
   that G W Bush and Obama/Hillary Clinton have done.  The wars have set   
   us back by trillions.  On the other hand, I understand that if such a   
   wall is going to be built, it will be paid for by the trade imbalance   
   between the US and Mexico and we're talking about tens of billions a   
   year that are under our control.  I'm amazed by your liberal estimate   
   in the cost of such a wall.  Besides, the way the US government works   
   in this country in terms of spending is the president just can't do as   
   much as your wild claim has suggested.   
      
   As for the boots thing, you have fallen in love with your own belief   
   so much that you failed to differentiate the relative importance of   
   the words he used in different contexts.  Of course, you can believe   
   what you want and no data will become available until the time he   
   becomes president - which remains a huge - yuuuge - hypothetical.   
      
   You see you are so sure about what Trump will do, right?  But that's   
   just not Jim Webb's take.  Webb is a war veteran and a former Senator   
   from Virginia; therefore his political assessment carries weight.   
      
   You know what he told the media?  This is what: "He doesn't know what   
   Trump will do but he's sure what Hillary will do.  So, he won't vote   
   for Hillary."   
      
   He has effectively said that "Hillary Clinton has been wrong on every   
   foreign policy issue since 9/11".   
      
   The significance of his latest pronouncement lies in his refusal to   
   support a Democratic nominee in HRC despite being a Democrat himself.   
      
   On the other hand, voting for Trump remains a possibility for him -   
   presumably because a lot will depend on how Trump will position   
   himself in the general election.   
      
   You see that's exactly my view.  All I have ever posted here was more   
   or less his anti-war pronouncements - because that's what I care   
   about.  I believe that our interventionist regime-change wars and acts   
   of liberal aggression are utterly immoral while at the same time every   
   war becomes another real source for hemorrhage of our continuously   
   weakened economy.  And I believe that many Trump supporters think in   
   those terms.  They are too numerous to be all crazy.  In Trump, they   
   may be gambling a bit.  But it's surely better than knowingly buying   
   snake oil - someone who is a strong advocate of intervention and   
   regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.  In case there   
   is any doubt, boots on the ground in these four countries are ongoing   
   and Hillary is supporting them all.  And then the boots in Yemen is   
   coming.  And who knows whereelse for Hillary?   
      
   To have another look of how the neocons dislike and distrust Trump:   
      
     "Trump is terrifying to [Sheldon] Adelson: He dissed John McCain's   
     war record, declared that the Iraq War was a disaster based on a   
     lie, and also said that Bush didn't keep anyone safe, in fact 9/11   
     happened on his watch.  And he made many of those statements on TV   
     in supposedly military-friendly South Carolina, thereby energizing   
     a populist antiwar constituency. Who knows what he would do as   
     president? He just might declare that the whole   
     military-defense-industrial-congressional complex is a "scam" being   
     run by a bunch of "losers" and declare he is going to cut its budget   
     in half."   
      
   And to show you why your characterization of Trump is far more like a   
   fantasy than reality, I will now cited the Politico article entitled   
   "neocons declare war on Trump".  Clearly, since the neocons are the   
   ones who are liberally into aggression and regime change, as war   
   veteran and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has pointed out that Hillary   
   is a part of, why would they love Trump - instead of "declaring war"   
   against him - if they believe what you believe about Trump?   
      
     Trump has shown little interest in the neoconservative cause of an   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)