JD Vance is a dumb twat.
That's all.
J Bolton Unloads
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
JD Vance is a dumb twat.
That's all.
Bolton is trash. He didn’t bend the knee. Lost his MAGA card
Just because he may be right about whatever is in that link, it doesn't mean that the war mongering piece of shit shouldn't EAD.
It's a good interview. Bolton is a smart guy. I found this kinda weird, though:
"Putin doesn’t think they’re friends. He thinks Trump is an easy mark. And he thinks he’s manipulable. And he has been manipulating him as when Putin said several weeks ago, “You know, Trump was right that if he had been president, there wouldn’t have been a war in Ukraine”. Well, maybe so, maybe not. But Trump loved to hear that. Then they released the hostage, Mark Foley. Then [Aleksandr] Lukashenko and Belarus released another American hostage. This is the manipulation at work."
So Putin manipulated Trump into . . . getting two American hostages out of Russian and Belarus?
"Putin doesn’t think they’re friends. He thinks Trump is an easy mark. And he thinks he’s manipulable. And he has been manipulating him as when Putin said several weeks ago, “You know, Trump was right that if he had been president, there wouldn’t have been a war in Ukraine”. Well, maybe so, maybe not. But Trump loved to hear that. Then they released the hostage, Mark Foley. Then [Aleksandr] Lukashenko and Belarus released another American hostage. This is the manipulation at work."
So Putin manipulated Trump into . . . getting two American hostages out of Russian and Belarus?
Bolton lays out the internal dispute within the GOP between the neo-cons and neo-isolationists well:
"Well, I can’t explain what is motivating Vance, but I do think that it reflects a very primitive view of international relations. And really, not that dissimilar from Trump, where everything is a matter of dollars and cents. There’s no appreciation for what a collective security, collective defense organization like NATO is and what it gives the United States — how it benefits the United States.
I think in part, we’re suffering from 35 years post-end of the Cold War, where we’ve had inadequate expression of why America has strategic interests all around the world and why we need to protect them, why a forward American policy benefits us. We’ve heard too much, frankly, from liberals about how we’re doing this for the sake of democracy around the world. And in fact, that’s not correct. We’re doing this in substantial part because it’s in our interest to do it, that whatever minimal amount of order there is in the world benefits us. It’s true that many of our allies don’t bear their fair share of the burden, but we’re not doing this for them. We’re doing it for us. And if we don’t do it for us, nobody else is going to do it for us."
"Well, I can’t explain what is motivating Vance, but I do think that it reflects a very primitive view of international relations. And really, not that dissimilar from Trump, where everything is a matter of dollars and cents. There’s no appreciation for what a collective security, collective defense organization like NATO is and what it gives the United States — how it benefits the United States.
I think in part, we’re suffering from 35 years post-end of the Cold War, where we’ve had inadequate expression of why America has strategic interests all around the world and why we need to protect them, why a forward American policy benefits us. We’ve heard too much, frankly, from liberals about how we’re doing this for the sake of democracy around the world. And in fact, that’s not correct. We’re doing this in substantial part because it’s in our interest to do it, that whatever minimal amount of order there is in the world benefits us. It’s true that many of our allies don’t bear their fair share of the burden, but we’re not doing this for them. We’re doing it for us. And if we don’t do it for us, nobody else is going to do it for us."
They need a better response to this argument than this one.
Bolton is one of those guys who thinks he's the smartest man in the room. He doesn't like to play second fiddle or be a team player. He wants the recognition for being a genius.
I agree with him often and I respect that, when others were saying Trump disparaged WWII veterans, he denied them because he was there and never heard it.
Trump and Bolton are like oil and water and they never miss a chance to take shots at each other.
That’s not the point at all for Putin. Hostages are a dime a dozen. Putin‘s manipulation is giving Ego Man a chance to announce his successes in freeing hostages so he naively views Putin as an ally.
It was actually a prisoner exchange. Mark Folely the teacher from Pittsburgh (and yet another guy who thought it would be okay to bring medical marijuana into Russia), was exchanged for Alexander Vinnik--who plead guilty to money laundering and said ownership in some sort of crypto currency (which we all know I neither want nor have knowledge of). Included in that deal was the american and I think a journalist from Belarussia.
Putin doesn't do anything for free (or least not free in a traditional sense). I guess my take on whatever the relationship is between Trump and Putin, I think it would be fair to call it an extremely odd one where the President shows a great deal of deference to the Putin.
Bolton isn't a dummy--he's very well connected, but he's a warhawk in the Paul Wolfowitz mode. Again, another smart guy but a warhawk.
I never discuss this issue, because there is no way to know for sure. Bolton's denial was "I didn't hear him say it, but it could have been later". Mark Kelly said he heard trump say it. Several people said they never heard Trump say it. I have no idea one way or the next. Either people are lying or they misheard and are wrong, or they didn't hear it because they weren't there. Zero way for us to know, which is why I don't waste my time on it becasue all the cast of characters has an incentive to lie --one way or the next.
Last edited:
Trump is going to get all the blame for these relationships souring (and I dosagree with how he has gone about this) but our allies shoulder quite a bit of responsibility for why we are where we are at.
Forget they don't shoulder their part, forget that they wanted to play both sides with Russia because of their own domestic energy problems, forget that they continuously wanted to badger and cajole the US into unfavorable agreements like the Paris Accords, I think all of those came into some sort of play. However, their biggest sin is getting too involved in domestic US politics. To the right, they are seen as merely an extension of the Democrats overseas and that plays out not just among their leadership but also on American dominated social media platforms that they also visit.
That has been their biggest sin and it has been going on since Reagan. The "Western" nations seem to be the worst at it too. Which is why NATO is more heavily on the chopping block at the moment. They insulted Trump and he is exacting his revenge but he has a bunch of people who either agree or don't care anymore because those allies have picked sides in internal domestic politics and tied their fortunes to one party. That was stupid.
Brad, is having world leaders democratically elected important enough to our interests to use agencies such as the CIA to overthrow authoritarians?
Several years ago watched lengthy interviews between Charlie Rose and Putin on PBS. Putin often mentioned that the U.S. was making diplomatic relations difficult by attempting to overthrow his government along with threatening Russia militarily via NATO.
So is accepting leaders such as Putin and working with them actually in our best interests rather than overthrowing their regimes?
What is the best approach?
Depends on the country. Democracy in any country in the Middle East not named Israel has been bad for us. A US aligned despot was and is better than a terrorist supporting Islamic state with domestic support.
In the case of Putin, the devil we know may be better than the devil we don't.
I seem to remember that, back in the day, maybe two decades or so ago, Bolton was branded by the media and the left as The Devil.
Has he ascended now?
Craze2, great response.
You astutely remind us of the failed democracies in the Middle East with the exception of Israel.
Heck, there are observers who contend Israel's democracy is failing. There are times when I question if our democracy is functioning as intended by The Founders.
lol
I'd say, though, that it might present a false dichotomy. Maybe we can design a policy that doesn't "accept" dictators but also doesn't actively and secretly work to overthrow their regime? The question is, how much should we engage with them, even while saying we stand for certain values like democracy and hoping other nations and cultures can achieve it?
Any approach, I think, needs to take into account all the realities of foreign policy, the way the world is and not how we would like it to be, and human nature (among other things). I'm not sure Bolton's view, does, though. The neo-isolationists get some things right: that there is a big cost to foreign meddling, more than money--it makes the US a target for a lot of resentment, hatred, etc. from other nations and peoples that results in bad results for us and the world.
It's a great question, @hoot1.
I'd say, though, that it might present a false dichotomy. Maybe we can design a policy that doesn't "accept" dictators but also doesn't actively and secretly work to overthrow their regime? The question is, how much should we engage with them, even while saying we stand for certain values like democracy and hoping other nations and cultures can achieve it?
Any approach, I think, needs to take into account all the realities of foreign policy, the way the world is and not how we would like it to be, and human nature (among other things). I'm not sure Bolton's view, does, though. The neo-isolationists get some things right: that there is a big cost to foreign meddling, more than money--it makes the US a target for a lot of resentment, hatred, etc. from other nations and peoples that results in bad results for us and the world.
Yes, because he's anti-Trump.
Trump is now the polestar for all people, on both sides, who don't think and argue ideas, just people.
He's 5'7 and has a ridiculous mustache. That's all you need to know about him.
Pretty bad ass, when you put it like that.
He would have been fired day 1 if Trump had me around.
Scene: 2016 Day 1 of Trump's Presidency. For the record Trump's hair is blowing slightly in the wind. Snarlcakes walks into the room:
Snarlcakes: Who is the short dude with a shitty porn stache?
Trump: I think it's Michael Bolton
Snarlcakes: Oh that's great. Michael do you mind singing one of your hits?
John: My name is John Bolton
Snarlcakes: Huh?
John: My name is John. I served under Bush and can't sing.
Snarlcakes: So, you're just a regular dude with a terrible mustache? You're going to need to leave now.
Trump: Can we get Michael Bolton to perform at the inauguration?
Snarlcakes: Michael's songs are panty droppers Prez. Let's get him.
Your heightism disgusts me.
I love short people. I just don't trust them if their in charge 🤣
I should ban you for that.
Absolutely, he's gone from punching bag to sage statesman on the left.
I hate the two faced garbage like that from both sides of the media.
Sean Hannity has gone from RFK Jr is a menace to RFK Jr is one of the most brilliant minds of our time.
It's been going since I really started paying attention to who was saying what back in the 90s.
They got little baby legs,
And they stand so low.
You got to pick them up,
Just to say hello.
Him and Dick Cheney are now two great pillars of strength on the left.
You can disagree with Bolton's policy positions and still give him credit for not sucking Trump's ass. Same for the Cheaneys and the rest. It's too bad there aren't more of them.
Some had to give free mustache rides to Pelosi
Blame it on wikipedia. I randomly googled him and they listed his height, 5'7. Also, they usually don't post heights for taller people🤣
We meddled in the affairs of far too many countries in the 50s/60s and 70s and even in the 80s.
The late 40s and 70s and into the 80s was a preoccupation with stopping communism and I believe John Foster Dulles came up with the phrase Domino Theory in the Eisenhower administration--as applied to indochina. The theory made sense--the soviet/communist regime from the 1918 onward more or less demanded continual revolution and that revolution must spread to different areas. I get the logic behind it. My guess is that the meddling and removing of world leaders by the US probably doesn't happen so much anymore. When did our meddling, we thought it would totally normal to work with Pinochet. When we brought back in the shaw, that was a disaster and look at what we reaped there..... Working with dictators like Saddam Hussein has been a long standing tradition because it served our purposes. Until it didn't.
It is a different world. Economies are so integrated right now that in all likelihood communism like a soviet regime isn't coming back. Alliances still matter; relationships still matter. The tanking of Europe's economy is going to have terrible effects here. China shitting the bed is going to have terrible consequences here. I'm not sure I understand our current administration's end game until you assume that this Administration wants to have ownership and control of a much larger area and is willing to accept Russia having a larger sphere of influence that might go back to pre fall soviet union.
I have no idea why such a hatred for Europe either. The EU has a massive economy; they send trillions of dollars US goods and services; we get taxes of off their products sold here; we generally get the best and brightest minds from Europe working for US companies. Europe gave us the Premier League and La Liga for crying out loud...... Maybe I'm biased. One set of grandparents came from Belgium and the other came from England.
Please explain what part of the Israel 'democracy' has been good for the USA.
The greatest achievement PDJT could produce would be to take American back from Isrsel.
Make America American Again.
Last edited:
You say that as if that is a good thing. It should more like Europe gave us World War 1, World War 2, and the Premiere League.
Similar threads
