On the Duran, the two Alexanders have posted a very interesting video which purports to explain Putin’s legal arguments to justify checkmating negotiations with the Kiev regime, contrary to what Trump wants.
It seems there's an argument ongoing in the 'empire' as to whether Brits or Americans are the most intelligent, with claims being made of respective populations being of 65% to 80% above average intelligence ~ apparently backed up by evidence!? [I wonder if they think similarly about maths?!]
Elon (vulgar family error for 'Eloh'- Aramaic for 'God') Musk is a psychopath and a moron - the two usually go together and all the PR in the world cannot erase that fact. The 280 character (including spaces) limit to post length on the 'X' [sickeningly sic] platform is to reduce thinking to 'soundbites'. People like Musk, Biden Sinclair-Castro, Macron, think only in soundbites, and even if they can think a bit longer, they prefer that no one else does.
I really enjoyed you writing about something you experienced up close - law. I worked in the (In)justice system myself for years which left me great swaths of time to think, as the pace of court proceedings and argument is not exactly Mercurial but Mercouris speed - little faster but also potentially more charming than lava.
I actually studied for the Law School exam at one point. Macfarlanes were famous drunks and cattle rustlers in Scotland. After the clan lost its lands, the Macfarlanes of that ilk moved on to?
Elon is just getting started! I figure by 2050 at the latest the entirety of the English language will be pared down to about 30 or so Emojis.
Human daily interactions will consist of making stupid faces and gestures at each other that invariably end in frustration and failure. It will not occur to the great unwashed hordes of the proletariat to innovate, as intelligence will have been medicinally erased by Pfizer, et al.
'Yurp,' now the EU, or Fourth Reich, has always had a morbid and envious fascination for the USA. They were unduly seduced by the prospect of Central Heating and public pornography.
"Incongruities notwithstanding the Alexes want to be “rational” — which is of course irrational when dealing with geopolitics."
It's mostly Mercouris that beats the "rationality" horse to death constantly. This is TIRESOME, frustrating and idiotic. A huge mental trap for an often brilliant observer.
But I'm not so sure Putin doesn't fall into the trap as well. His slow, steady war of attrition does not seem to account for frothing Western madness. If Russia collectively were a bit more "irrationally" crazy and unpredictable they might be safer against the rabid dogs of US empire.
In other words, "irrationality" can be supremely rational in some instances. I just want the effing war over. Slow, steady, calm and "rational" may NOT be the safest or speediest course.
The Washington "folks" may not cotton to legal niceties; but many of the other 96% of humanity do. One thing I appreciate about Mr Putin (and, to be fair, I think the Russian government as an institution) is that they are scrupulous about sticking to the letter of the law and, as far as possible, Christian morality as well. It all goes down on the record for everyone to witness.
"I have to say" (my favourite Mercourism) that in discussions over coffee this morning, I was foolishly invited by my partner to bloviate about the current state of global affairs. I said, on a caffeine high, that Trump, The West, NATO, the Soros-Epstein-Blinken-Fourth Reich, Five Eyes Axis of Evil, having lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the ME and even in Gaza, have taken their eyes off of Iran, Russia and China and are instead raging against their helpless and utterly supine neighbours -Greenland, Canada and Mexico.
Because the synthetic rage, media-fomented hatred, tit-tweaking/cock-blocking cannot be allowed to turn inwards in genuine uprising, rebellion and the rule of Dr Guillotine in the Homeland.
I find the current essay a collection of judgments.
Some of them I agree with and some I find to be incorrect (It is Secretary of State Rubio, not Rubin, btw).
Having written for an audience for many years I like to try to help out promising Essayists by making constructive suggestions. As a longtime psychologist I will focus on 2 related points.
1. Some people, especially left-handed (aka Right-brain dominant people) are more likely to become lawyers (or actors) but they are not BORN lawyers or with the skills of them.
2.a Not approving of Trump policy, are potentially unaware of the full import and/or implications of Trump policy, and do not like Trump's manner/mannerisms, is NOT evidence of "irrationality" or that he is "illogical".
The judgment of the crowd (the majority of 2024 Americans voters) do not agree with you. So, if your thesis is to be believed some good evidence would be useful. I am afraid you are drawing conclusions about how Trump actions appear to you, rather than whether Trumps BEHAVIOUR is logical based on Trump's Goals at the time.
That Trump lies, is more evidence he is a Politician (and I note that most politicians are ironically, Lawyers).
2.b Making ad hominem attacks like "Trump is irrational" tends to be a tactic of a debater with no real verifiable evidence. Better to provide evidence. OTOH, ad hominem communications work if your audience already agrees with you. If you have an undecided audience, an ad hominem argument is ineffective to convince them you are correct.
I am not a fan of any Politician, although I like some policies of some politicians (e.g. I like Peace).
If Canadian, Mexican, Danish and Panamanian politicians understand Trump actions in respect to his goals, the probability of gaining something in negotiations would likely increase.
Even if Trump is getting the truth about the reality on the ground there still really isn't anything he can actually do. He can't surrender. He can't win in negotiations. The US arms/equipment stockpiles have run out. Sanctions won't hurt Russia. I watched Active Measures yesterday and 60 "defense" big wigs have floated the idea to put US nuclear weapons in some of the Baltic states😬 So I'm going to presume they do know the reality on the ground and they're desperate to change it. Will Trump agree to it? Who knows?
Trump does not need to surrender and has no chance of winning even if he starts a nuclear war, which he is against. Nobody WINS a nuclear war.
Military men that want to use a Nuclear conflagration to end civilization over Ukraine are certifiably Warmongers. They are even betraying the Military Industrial Complex!
It is not Trump's war.
He did not start it.
If anything it is Biden, Blinken & Sullivan's War and the NeoCon's/DeepState's War Dating back to the Clinton Administration when plans were made to expand NATO.
Trump or his appointees have already admitted that many of the Policies of the US Government, especially the Biden Govt., were not smart and not correct: That the Ukraine War was a Mistake. That Ukraine should not have been lied to that they could beat Russia.
THAT IS presumably why Trump ran against Biden and the Democrat Party, promising to end the war.
To stop bad practices and to fix things that were mistakes.
The Voters voted in favor of what he promised by voting for him.
Trump can say "Stopping an unnecessary war that has killed more than a million Ukrainians, already, is doing the Ukrainians a favor in the long run." It was a bad error and my Administration wants to END wars, not START them.
I say Trump CAN END the war, although I never said that he WILL.
I cannot know what decisions Trump or Putin have decided are possible alternatives for themselves, in the political context they find themselves, their preferences, and according to their views how a variety of decisions are likely to work out.
When I say Trump CAN end the war, I mean there can be deal at ANY time:
IF Trump satisfies Putin's requirements for a deal that is acceptable to Putin, at the then current stage of
1. the war and
2. the relationship between the US and Russia
probably including in the agreement verification protocols and significant penalties for bad faith.
My view is a long-lasting fair and effective Security Arrange would be very attractive for Russia, and may be attractive enough for Trump (as yet another way to go into History Books) that fighting in Ukraine could continue until there is an overall Security Deal. Signing the deal, stops the fighting.
Alternatively, during the ongoing war, Trump could even make a deal to completely stop supporting Ukraine monetarily to show good faith and immediately start overall Security negotiations.
I am not saying this is the most likely outcome.
It is an outcome in which Trump actively asserts that he is keeping two campaign promises
1. stopping the war quickly
2. actively seeking to avoid future wars
And at the same time, Trump would reject that HE "lost" a war that killed 1 million Ukrainians, but that whoever was acting "in loco POTUS" (and their supporters) lost it and never should have started it (he already said the latter).
I do no assert this WILL happen, only that something like it COULD because it has some benefits for Trump, makes him a winner and his enemies, the losers.
It's foolish to think that the pursuit of inequality has changed. Trump is just a proxy for Project 2025. And Project 2025 will be a proxy for bigger power. Left and right are just masks.
Some people have great minds like Putin others THINK they have great minds but are mediocre.
This is what the USA/UK/EU cannot comprehend.
The state of education in the US has led the people to believe they have the greatest minds.....NO.
IT should be so simple to understand this but we, in our ignorance try to move forward with our so-called voted Governments.
The Western World has hit a BRICK wall: Instead of making PEACE with China and Russia they choose the ignorant path of aggression.
It seems there's an argument ongoing in the 'empire' as to whether Brits or Americans are the most intelligent, with claims being made of respective populations being of 65% to 80% above average intelligence ~ apparently backed up by evidence!? [I wonder if they think similarly about maths?!]
LOL..... Chappy has a higher IQ than most Brits or Americans. And is less trouble.
Intelligent people love echo chambers.
Elon (vulgar family error for 'Eloh'- Aramaic for 'God') Musk is a psychopath and a moron - the two usually go together and all the PR in the world cannot erase that fact. The 280 character (including spaces) limit to post length on the 'X' [sickeningly sic] platform is to reduce thinking to 'soundbites'. People like Musk, Biden Sinclair-Castro, Macron, think only in soundbites, and even if they can think a bit longer, they prefer that no one else does.
I really enjoyed you writing about something you experienced up close - law. I worked in the (In)justice system myself for years which left me great swaths of time to think, as the pace of court proceedings and argument is not exactly Mercurial but Mercouris speed - little faster but also potentially more charming than lava.
I actually studied for the Law School exam at one point. Macfarlanes were famous drunks and cattle rustlers in Scotland. After the clan lost its lands, the Macfarlanes of that ilk moved on to?
Yes, the clergy and law. Go figure.
Elon is just getting started! I figure by 2050 at the latest the entirety of the English language will be pared down to about 30 or so Emojis.
Human daily interactions will consist of making stupid faces and gestures at each other that invariably end in frustration and failure. It will not occur to the great unwashed hordes of the proletariat to innovate, as intelligence will have been medicinally erased by Pfizer, et al.
😎🍔🍕🍺😴
You mean the language ISN"T just emojis?
I was always puzzled by both Alex and Alexander's partiality for Trump.
They want to see method in madness.
I'm not sure it is so much a partiality for Trump as a revulsion from the only (as constrained by the US political system) alternative.
I hate Marmite and can barely keep it down, but I would take a Marmite sandwich over a ground glass one.
I too hate Marmite. I would rather starve than eat it.
Bovril and butter - yum.
That is the way Russians feel about peanut butter.
I don't care for peanut butter either. I am a man without a country,
'Yurp,' now the EU, or Fourth Reich, has always had a morbid and envious fascination for the USA. They were unduly seduced by the prospect of Central Heating and public pornography.
What would I do without Pornhub --Canada's contribution to global culture.
'Then there are “litigators”, courtroom lawyers who must think on their feet and argue and persuade'.
Ah yes, that reminds me...
"When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table".
- Quoted by The Saker as “an old lawyer’s trick”.
I miss the Saker!
"Incongruities notwithstanding the Alexes want to be “rational” — which is of course irrational when dealing with geopolitics."
It's mostly Mercouris that beats the "rationality" horse to death constantly. This is TIRESOME, frustrating and idiotic. A huge mental trap for an often brilliant observer.
But I'm not so sure Putin doesn't fall into the trap as well. His slow, steady war of attrition does not seem to account for frothing Western madness. If Russia collectively were a bit more "irrationally" crazy and unpredictable they might be safer against the rabid dogs of US empire.
In other words, "irrationality" can be supremely rational in some instances. I just want the effing war over. Slow, steady, calm and "rational" may NOT be the safest or speediest course.
The Washington "folks" may not cotton to legal niceties; but many of the other 96% of humanity do. One thing I appreciate about Mr Putin (and, to be fair, I think the Russian government as an institution) is that they are scrupulous about sticking to the letter of the law and, as far as possible, Christian morality as well. It all goes down on the record for everyone to witness.
In the US you buy "justice" just like everything. In Russia, justice is a social arbiter.
"I have to say" (my favourite Mercourism) that in discussions over coffee this morning, I was foolishly invited by my partner to bloviate about the current state of global affairs. I said, on a caffeine high, that Trump, The West, NATO, the Soros-Epstein-Blinken-Fourth Reich, Five Eyes Axis of Evil, having lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the ME and even in Gaza, have taken their eyes off of Iran, Russia and China and are instead raging against their helpless and utterly supine neighbours -Greenland, Canada and Mexico.
Because the synthetic rage, media-fomented hatred, tit-tweaking/cock-blocking cannot be allowed to turn inwards in genuine uprising, rebellion and the rule of Dr Guillotine in the Homeland.
Or can it?
I find the current essay a collection of judgments.
Some of them I agree with and some I find to be incorrect (It is Secretary of State Rubio, not Rubin, btw).
Having written for an audience for many years I like to try to help out promising Essayists by making constructive suggestions. As a longtime psychologist I will focus on 2 related points.
1. Some people, especially left-handed (aka Right-brain dominant people) are more likely to become lawyers (or actors) but they are not BORN lawyers or with the skills of them.
2.a Not approving of Trump policy, are potentially unaware of the full import and/or implications of Trump policy, and do not like Trump's manner/mannerisms, is NOT evidence of "irrationality" or that he is "illogical".
The judgment of the crowd (the majority of 2024 Americans voters) do not agree with you. So, if your thesis is to be believed some good evidence would be useful. I am afraid you are drawing conclusions about how Trump actions appear to you, rather than whether Trumps BEHAVIOUR is logical based on Trump's Goals at the time.
That Trump lies, is more evidence he is a Politician (and I note that most politicians are ironically, Lawyers).
2.b Making ad hominem attacks like "Trump is irrational" tends to be a tactic of a debater with no real verifiable evidence. Better to provide evidence. OTOH, ad hominem communications work if your audience already agrees with you. If you have an undecided audience, an ad hominem argument is ineffective to convince them you are correct.
I am not a fan of any Politician, although I like some policies of some politicians (e.g. I like Peace).
If Canadian, Mexican, Danish and Panamanian politicians understand Trump actions in respect to his goals, the probability of gaining something in negotiations would likely increase.
Thanks for the correction . Rubio it is.
I corrected the misspelling. With regard to right brain / left brain people that contradicts current neuroscience. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247399294_Left_Brain_Right_Brain_Perspectives_from_Cognitive_Neuroscience It's a myth. For the last decade there has been a huge amount of research about this and overwhelming consensus.
Even if Trump is getting the truth about the reality on the ground there still really isn't anything he can actually do. He can't surrender. He can't win in negotiations. The US arms/equipment stockpiles have run out. Sanctions won't hurt Russia. I watched Active Measures yesterday and 60 "defense" big wigs have floated the idea to put US nuclear weapons in some of the Baltic states😬 So I'm going to presume they do know the reality on the ground and they're desperate to change it. Will Trump agree to it? Who knows?
Trump does not need to surrender and has no chance of winning even if he starts a nuclear war, which he is against. Nobody WINS a nuclear war.
Military men that want to use a Nuclear conflagration to end civilization over Ukraine are certifiably Warmongers. They are even betraying the Military Industrial Complex!
It is not Trump's war.
He did not start it.
If anything it is Biden, Blinken & Sullivan's War and the NeoCon's/DeepState's War Dating back to the Clinton Administration when plans were made to expand NATO.
Trump or his appointees have already admitted that many of the Policies of the US Government, especially the Biden Govt., were not smart and not correct: That the Ukraine War was a Mistake. That Ukraine should not have been lied to that they could beat Russia.
THAT IS presumably why Trump ran against Biden and the Democrat Party, promising to end the war.
To stop bad practices and to fix things that were mistakes.
The Voters voted in favor of what he promised by voting for him.
Trump can say "Stopping an unnecessary war that has killed more than a million Ukrainians, already, is doing the Ukrainians a favor in the long run." It was a bad error and my Administration wants to END wars, not START them.
Trump literally CANNOT end the war🤦♀️Russia is winning on the battlefield where it counts. Russia will end the war on the battlefield.
I say Trump CAN END the war, although I never said that he WILL.
I cannot know what decisions Trump or Putin have decided are possible alternatives for themselves, in the political context they find themselves, their preferences, and according to their views how a variety of decisions are likely to work out.
When I say Trump CAN end the war, I mean there can be deal at ANY time:
IF Trump satisfies Putin's requirements for a deal that is acceptable to Putin, at the then current stage of
1. the war and
2. the relationship between the US and Russia
probably including in the agreement verification protocols and significant penalties for bad faith.
My view is a long-lasting fair and effective Security Arrange would be very attractive for Russia, and may be attractive enough for Trump (as yet another way to go into History Books) that fighting in Ukraine could continue until there is an overall Security Deal. Signing the deal, stops the fighting.
Alternatively, during the ongoing war, Trump could even make a deal to completely stop supporting Ukraine monetarily to show good faith and immediately start overall Security negotiations.
I am not saying this is the most likely outcome.
It is an outcome in which Trump actively asserts that he is keeping two campaign promises
1. stopping the war quickly
2. actively seeking to avoid future wars
And at the same time, Trump would reject that HE "lost" a war that killed 1 million Ukrainians, but that whoever was acting "in loco POTUS" (and their supporters) lost it and never should have started it (he already said the latter).
I do no assert this WILL happen, only that something like it COULD because it has some benefits for Trump, makes him a winner and his enemies, the losers.
No he can't🤣
Nice post! txs!
Russia 🇷🇺 first and forever, land of war, peace, marvel and future ☦️🇷🇺☦️🇷🇺☦️🇷🇺☦️🇷🇺✅
Putin learned something from the “not an inch to the west” promise, Fool me once…another proof he is a real leader
LOL....I shared this Article on my facebook, and zuck deleted it a minute later. So much about "new zuck"...
Zuck deleted my post there too.
It's foolish to think that the pursuit of inequality has changed. Trump is just a proxy for Project 2025. And Project 2025 will be a proxy for bigger power. Left and right are just masks.
Garland Nixon's show, "No Place for NATO in the New World" has an interesting take on Trump.
Cheers,
john
Litigator - Barrister?
All litigators are barristers in Canada. But not all barristers litigate.