BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 09:55 AM

Hey Ake! Trump is the boy that's gonna clean up all the corruption in Washington, right??



WASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani, a top adviser to President-elect Donald J. Trump, said on Sunday that it would be "unrealistic" to remove Mr. Trump's children from their roles in running his business empire and place the assets into a blind trust like the ones used by previous presidents.

Ethics experts said Mr. Giuliani's remarks were misguided on ethical and political grounds.

"It is extremely inappropriate,"said Richard W. Painter, a White House ethics officer during the George W. Bush administration. "In the past 200 years, we have never had a president with such egregious conflicts of interest with family business holdings."

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 05:14 AM

Headlines this morning.
Trump has announced that building a wall to keep Mexicans out was "just talk" and that he has no intention of scrapping Obamacare - a double whammy really.
He's exposed himself as a liar and has hung his supporters out to dry by allowing themselves to expose themselves as what kind of people they are.
Never mind - he might have thrown them a bone - Sarah Palin is tipped as Minister of the Interior
Gawd Bless America
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 03:26 AM

"We The People."
One of the distressing things about all this is that those defending Trump have never attempted to defend his policies or deny the summing up of what he stands for, so presumably they are happy to have a racist, misogynist, antisemitic, dangerous thug with his finger on the nuclear button as their President.
In which case, the answer to the OP's original question is a resounding "NO" - America is not a laughing stock - America has become a place to be feared and not trusted - a very, very dangerous state - "by the will of the people".
I re-watched Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' a few nights before the result was announced and thought, 'surely that has to stop sometime'?
Nope - that seems to be a majority of the U.S. people summed up perfectly.
'Make America Hate' now seems to be the order of the day.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: olddude
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 01:05 AM

Hey Greg, I have to thank trump for one thing. I fit in my jeans better after puking off several pounds from the thought of him in office

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:53 PM

The good thing about the past is there's no need to worry about how it's going to turn out.

Unfortunetely, Kevin, the past is very much in our present, with the KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremecists and miscellaneous anti-government "patriot"[sic] militias as Trumpist supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:49 PM

Any thoughts on similarities and differences with Trump and Teddy Roosevelt?

Simalarities? Absolutely farkin none. TR was an imperialist in an age of imperialism, so gets a bit of a pass in that he wasn't ahead of his time.

He was also dead against the "malefactors of great wealth"- which is Trump incarnate.

Nothing whatsoever similar in the platform of the Progressive (a.k.a. Bull Moose) party.

The Republicruds haven't been the "Party of Lincoln" since 1876 or "The Party of TR " since 1912.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 06:28 PM

Arguing about Lincoln might make for a welcome respite from thinking about Trump. The good thing about the past is there's no need to worry about how it's going to turn out. So such arguments shouldn't be spoiled by any unpleasantness.
........

Any thoughts on similarities and differences with Trump and Teddy Roosevelt? For all the latter's faults it'd be good to imagine that Trump's populism could end up producing a few things to match what Teddy left behind.   But I rather doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:36 PM

Stim - I never claimed you were a neo-Confederate, just that your take on the event under discussion seemed to lean in that direction.

Now if deliniation of the facts of the matter somehow translates to you that I'm calling you a neo-Confederate, that's unfortunate. If you choose to take offense, I'm sorry, but there it is. Perhaps you should consider your capacity to mis-state.

Avoid posting or whatever you wish; your call.

Best,

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:28 PM

YO, AKE! Shut up for once & listen to Bernie!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-wants-to-revitalize-democrats-after-loss-174429895.html

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Stim
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 05:26 PM

I am a Neo-confederate? I am just telling you what they thought, not what i think. I am not any sort of apologist for the Confederacy. Never have been, never will be. If you had paid any attention to anything over the years, you might remember that I've tangled in the past with some Mudcatters who claim that secession had nothing to do with slavery, but you don't.

I am going to avoid posting in any thread that you've posted in, because your capacity to misunderstand is surpassed only by your disagreeable manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 04:05 PM

Sorry, Stim, Sim, Lincoln HADN'T "sent them".

Lincoln requested troops from the several northern states to defend the national capital (largely militia units) who supplied them, and the only practical way to get them where they had to go, considering the transportation infrastructure of the time, was through Baltimore.

The later route thru Annapolis- by way of the sea - took considerably longer, and was evidence of Lincoln's willingness to attempt mollify secessionist traitors rather than the reverse.

Yes, there was a strong secessionist element in Baltimore, and the "riot" was down to them. Period.

I really do get weary of this whole new/old Neo-Confederate slant on reality. This nonsense has all been debunked before, but zombie-like, it refuses to die. Perhaps I need a crossbow.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Stim
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 03:31 PM

Greg--The troops were in Baltimore, wherever they happened to be going, and Lincoln had sent them. There was a very strong, vocal secessionist movement in Maryland, and they exploited this, both with the riots and in subsequent recruiting efforts.   

The threat of losing Maryland to the secessionists was significant enough that, immediately after the riots, Governor Hicks, who was a Unionist, asked Lincoln not to send anymore troops thru Baltimore. In response, Lincoln shipped the troops to Washington by way of Annapolis instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 01:46 PM

Dear President Obama and Secretary Clinton,

The one note song 'The business of America is business' has gone on too long.   One bit of advice,
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID; THEN, NOW, FOREVERMORE until the end of time.

The banks were bailed out, even the wives of bankers were bailed out.
Your chance to be an early FDR is done. We were cleaned out.

Thank you for your misguided efforts,
We The People.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 01:36 PM

"except for a few of we socialists"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 01:28 PM

Most people found Mr Blair Most engaging and even likable.....more so as he began to produce power for the Labour Party.

Slowly the truth dawned......except for a few of we socialists, we knew what he was right from the beginning. Nis prodigy still infest the corridors of power.
I don't suppose he ever thought of grasping a "pussy" in his life, unless it was the hated no 10 cat :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 01:13 PM

Dunno, Kevin - suggest you ask the Repulican Party; their policies & antics of the last quarter-century (& especially since Pres. Obama was elected) created this Trump-zombie & his zombie followers.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 12:58 PM

That's 60,470,406 of your fellow citizens who are not "human beings capable of reason". So what do you propose in what you see as a zombie takeover? Kill them all?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 12:45 PM

The former seems inconceivable -

Only if you assume that the supporters are rational human beings capable of reason, or forget that said supporters embody the same loathsome characteristics of Trump himself.

And I don't mean this as a snide comment, insult or joke in bad taste. Its a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 12:11 PM

I wasn't really thinking of you there Greg.

But with his supporters, is it that they actually like him, or that it's more a case of "He's a nasty lying bastard - but he's our nasty lying bastard"?

The latter would make some kind of sense. The former seems inconceivable - and yetit does seem to be how many followers seem to feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 11:03 AM

Do Americans feel that way about Trump?

Hard to find a lying, racist sexual predator "engaging" Kevin, unless you're one of his brownshirts.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 10:33 AM

Could hardly have got to Washington without going through Maryland...

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 10:21 AM

There was an idea, held in many quarters, that Abraham Lincoln sent the troops into Baltimore as a deliberate provocation...

Thanks, Stim - but not quite. The troops from the North were sent THOrUGH Baltimore en route to Washington DC because that's the way the railroads ran, and rail was the fastest way to get troops to defend the capital with the transportation system of the time.

There was also an idea, held in many quarters (and may still be!) that the Moon Landing was faked in a movie studio.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 08:28 AM

The thing with Boris is that he's aware when he's being absurd, and plays with it. He's very shrewd. Many people who detest all he stands for (whatever that might be) do find him quite engaging.

Do Americans feel that way about Trump? To people here he just cones across as thoroughly unpleasant and unsavoury.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 08:10 AM

They have a lot in common, survivors against all odds, not afraid to wade in, rich parents. Though Boris is quick witted and Lumpy fires from the hip. It should (please) be in the full glare of publicity.

Lumpy will win in the eyes of his constituency.
Boris will score points they can't understand.

We will laugh and weep at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 07:48 AM

Asked on TV to comment on how Donald and Boris might get on, his sister, who does not share too many views with her brother, said they'd probably get on "like a house on fire - which is rather a disturbing thought".

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 03:26 AM

Boris is currently our Foreign Secretary!

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 03:25 AM

There will be a few laughs when your Mr Lump meets our resident buffo - Boris.

Boris will quote Shakespeare and Virgil. And Lumpy will think he is being insulted. King Boris (ex mayor of London) has already opined your man is not welcome in London.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Stim
Date: 12 Nov 16 - 02:14 AM

I was merely providing information on the Baltimore Riots, as they are generally regarded as the the first bloodshed in the Civil War. Since you have asked, and for the benefit of our friends across the pond who might not be as familiar with the events as you and I are, I will relate what I understand of the matter.

There was an idea, held in many quarters, that Abraham Lincoln sent the troops into Baltimore as a deliberate provocation to the city, with the intent of escalating tensions to violence, and in that way justifying further military action. It immediately became a rallying point for secessionists. This belief was in fact immortalized in our state song, which was widely performed in to build support for the Southern cause. This, as you know, is somewhat ironic, since Maryland remained in the Union. Most of us here in Maryland have let this idea go, though there are a few hold outs.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:00 PM

Insofar as both were heads of state waging war against rebels, yes, Greg, they are comparable.

Different countries, different rebels, different ways of waging war. All kinds of difference, but there are indeed points of comparability. That doesn't imply that if you judge one a villain, you must judge the other a villain. Or that if you judge one a hero you must judge the other a hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:39 PM

I'm familiar with the episode you refer to, Stim.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how a mob of Confederate sympathizers attacking US troops (and killing several)en route to Washington to protect the Capital is germaine or was Lincoln's fault?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Stim
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:26 PM

GregF-He could also be referring to this:Baltimore Riot of 1861 , which, I think, is one of the reasons that Bobert doesn't like Abe Lincoln.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:24 PM

So you think Lincoln and Assad are comparable Kevin? Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:44 PM

You mean the people who bore arms against and attacked the government of the United States, THOSE people, Kevin? Those traitors?

I imagine that's more or less how Assad might put it.

Makes it easier to allow the killing to continue.

What matters is to find a way it can stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 07:39 PM

Johnathan Pie thinks he knows who is to blame for the rise of Trump.
OTHERS DISAGREE
AND AGAIN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: bobad
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:54 PM

Johnathan Pie thinks he knows who is to blame for the rise of Trump...and you're not going to like it!

YouTube

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 06:18 PM

Lincoln was accused of slaughtering "his own people"and it was true enough.

You mean the people who bore arms against and attacked the government of the United States, THOSE people, Kevin? Those traitors?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:21 PM

Yes Mr McGrath I agree completely with that excellent summation.

I think you and I are in agreement on more occasions than when we are in disagreement.   More power to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 02:56 PM

"the US, Syria would by now be totally in the hands of ISIS,"
Don't be even more stupid Ake
Opposition to Assad came from people trying to change Syria for the better - the Arab Spring - it was a social uprising, not a political or religious one.
The small bunch of fanatics that became Isis stepped into the void left by Western and U.N. action - Assad managed to turn the protests into a Civil War.
Britain did nothing other than sell Assad riot control equipment (following a shipment of sniper ammunition).
Even after Isis got involved, amny of the volunteers leaving Britain for Syria were not fanatics but young men who wished to see justice done in that par of the world - "Jihadist" became a term to protect the West's safe pair of hands - the Assad regime.
Throughout all the criminal slaughter carried out by Assad, he still owns millions of pounds of untouched property in London.
If things don't change radically in the Middle East, this war will never end.
Britan has a tiger by the tail and has to work how to let go.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 12:55 PM

The truth is there are some very nasty people among those opposed to Assad, and by no means all of them split away when many did to be a central part of Isis when this was set up. To assume that backing the rebels in 2013 (while those who set up Isis were still part of the phalanx of "moderate" opposition groups) would have ended with a democratic regime replacing Assad is extremely optimistic.   

At all times it appears that the Islamist fighters, whether in Isis or not, are perhaps the most effective, and it does not seem likely that they would have been ready to take a back seat in any new dispensation, especially one attempting to operate in secular or non-sectarian way.

It's a particularly horrible conflict, as civil wars almost invariably are. How far Assad is any different in his behaviour than other heads of State in such conflicts is unclear. Lincoln was accused of slaughtering "his own people", and it was true enough. Nor is it by any means clear whether those opposing him were more representative of the people of Syria or less. Many things have happened that pretty clearly were and are war crimes. But similar things and even worse can be said of what Americans did in Vietnam. And none of their leaders ever stood in the dock, though we may wish they had.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 11:44 AM

These people are dangerous fanatics and anyone who sides with them for any reason is a legitimate target

you mean these people, Ake?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-19/why-donald-trumps-kkk-and-white-supremacist-supporters-matter

And since Trump sides with them, is HE a "legitimate target"?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 10:31 AM

If we had gone in for regime change in Syria.....which was what was being proposed by the UK, France and latterly through the endeavours of Mrs Clinton, the US, Syria would by now be totally in the hands of ISIS, Christians would have been butchered, women enslaved and mass graves of civilians filled to overflowing.

These people are dangerous fanatics and anyone who sides with them for any reason is a legitimate target in my eyes.

In this situation human rights don't even come into the reckoning this is about survival.
Removing Assad would have the same effect as the removal of Saddam and Gadhafi.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 09:26 AM

warmongering to support the military industrial complex

Jaysus - Trump IS the military industrial complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 04:30 AM

"illegally trying to topple Assad "
Assad is a war criminal who has slaughtered his own people and has freely used chemical weapons against them (possibly facilitated by British materials)
The fact that toppling him can be described as "illegal" is an indication that the world is in a really ******* up state.
You are right about Saudi, of course - a further indication of the state of Western Democracy.
Never mind - Donald is going to sort all this out with one little wave of his nuclear finger
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 03:53 AM

The weight of evidence that Trump is a belligerent loose cannon gives a lie to him not being a warmonger. Go back and listen to his rhetoric. He means it, and he don't use words like rhetoric neither.

"How to be a President" wouldn't that be "Presidential for Dummies"?

You know, we outside the USA can only weep or laugh. And in the UK we are dun outa tears PAL!

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Iains
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 03:45 AM

For a country whose politicians support Saudi and are illegally trying to topple Assad I think not electing Clinton has postponed WW3.
Trump may have faults but warmongering to support the military industrial complex does not appear to be one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 03:43 AM

"would look pretty good if you had done some research and actually had read about it gnu:"
You can't help talking down to people, can you?
It really doews look ridiculous from someone of your intellectual stature -especially when you make things up and refuse to qualify anything.
If the West had acted against Assad, Isis would have remained the wet-dream of a bunch of fanatics - if there had been oil involved the Marines would have been stamping in in no time.
Instead, despite his human-rights criminality, he was considered a safe pair of hands and now we are fighting on his side against a monster we helped create.
Please stop talking down to people - the thought of a mental midget talking down to anybody always makes me spill my coffee
Don't suppose there's any chance of qualifying any of these makkie-ups - no? - thought not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 16 - 03:25 AM

gnu - 10 Nov 16 - 05:11 PM

There is a big difference between saying "bomb the shit out of ISIS" (which is what has been going on for a while now with little effect as that is the desired outcome, if you haven't noticed) and putting 300,000 troops on alert in Europe because the Russian Bear did to ISIS in less than a week what the US and the rest did in over two years. The US bombs hospitals and whatever... no problem. The Russians do it (MAYBE... was it the Saudis?)... WAR CRIMES!"

1: The "bomb the shit out of ISIS" (which is what has been going on for a while now with little effect as that is the desired outcome, if you haven't noticed) thing would look pretty good if you had done some research and actually had read about it gnu:

(a) At the time they first decided to engage in the air campaign against ISIS targets it applied only in support of the Iraqi government. Going after specific targets inside Syria came much later.

(b) At the time they first decided to engage in the air campaign against ISIS they stated quite clearly that it would take time.

(c) At the time they first decided to engage in the air campaign against ISIS they stated clearly that to defeat ISIS and drive them out of the territory they occupied it required a ground element that could only be provided by the Iraqi's and Kurds themselves.

2: "putting 300,000 troops on alert in Europe because the Russian Bear did to ISIS in less than a week what the US and the rest did in over two years."

Putting 300,000 NATO troops on alert in Europe has got S.F.A. to do with either the POTUS or what Russia is doing in Syria. Decision taken by Jens Stoltenberg the Secretary General of NATO probably has something to do with Russian moving nuclear armed missiles into Kallingrad. Oh by the way the Russian Bear's target of choice in Syria has and always will be Syrian civilians in rebel held areas.

3: "The US bombs hospitals and whatever... no problem. The Russians do it (MAYBE... was it the Saudis?)... WAR CRIMES!"

In the former there is a full and open independent investigation and admission of fault and regret - In the latter there is blank denial until the weight of evidence produced to demonstrate otherwise id so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied.

Bulk of Russian airstrikes have been against targets inside the Syrian city of Aleppo - there are no ISIS forces in Aleppo.

When ISIS were attacking the Syrian Kurdish city of Kobane there were no Russian airstrikes against ISIS targets in the area.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: gnu
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 05:11 PM

There is a big difference between saying "bomb the shit out of ISIS" (which is what has been going on for a while now with little effect as that is the desired outcome, if you haven't noticed) and putting 300,000 troops on alert in Europe because the Russian Bear did to ISIS in less than a week what the US and the rest did in over two years. The US bombs hospitals and whatever... no problem. The Russians do it (MAYBE... was it the Saudis?)... WAR CRIMES! Please try to keep up. Having said that, I shall go read more about the actual situation than engage in the bullshit with those that don't. In the end, we all know Trump or Hillary or anybody is not Commander In Chief. That is BP and Shell and Monsanto and Nestle and....

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 01:58 PM

And the nasty Godwin's Law thought kicks in - that was precisely what optimistic voices said when Hitler was elected.
Thank you Kevin, I'm glad that folks like yourself realize the seriousness of this situation.

ThoI'm sure Joe and the Ostrich Crowd will continue to make lame jokes about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we (USA) a laughingstock? (via Trump)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 16 - 01:43 PM

I keep on seeing people on the box saying "Don't worry. That was only campaign talk, rhetoric. He won't really do that."

And the nasty Godwin's Law thought kicks in - that was precisely what optimistic voices said when Hitler was elected.

Let's just hope this time they might be right. The feeble ray of hope is the man has contradicted him on just about everything.

I get the impression this is all just a kind of game for Trump. The biggest play thing of his life. As always there are Bob Dylan lines that seem apposite. In this case, chillingly apposite. From Masters of War.

You that never done nothing
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy...