Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 hour ago, moralist said: Michael, the only potential future danger in the picture I can see is this... The heightened expectation of Trump supporters that the government will make their life better... when only they themselves possess the power to do that. . . . It is my hope that Trump might one day find the wisdom to say: "From now on the government will leave you alone... now go tend to your own lives." Greg, Read any Donald Trump book, any one at all, and you will see that self-responsibility is a critical part of self-development (Trump's books are usually a mix of memoir and self-help). Then take a look at who is advising Trump from the political ideology world--small government constitutionalists. Believe me, Ted Cruz does not have a monopoly on them. Trump even likes Alex Jones (without all the paranoia) if you can believe it (I do). When you look, you see that Trump mostly promotes the views you stated above (within the bounds of common sense), albeit in different words--but especially in actions. And this is a beef I have with the ideological world, both left and right. They want reality referents to come cloaked in their own jargon. When that doesn't happen, they ignore the reality in front of them and cling to their jargon. This allows them to ignore the skyscrapers anyone can see and cling to Trump's failed use of "eminent domain." (It's also what allows them to call trade with dictatorships "free trade.") I think this is partly what fuels the intense hatred of Trump from the right. He doesn't use their jargon, but does transform beautiful projects into reality incorporating those concepts without bowing before their words, and he merges it with his personal growth philosophy. But more than just promote those views, Donald Trump serves as a terrific role model of how to put them into your own life if you ally them with values like excellence, hard work, productivity, learning, etc. Hell, throw in good family values to boot. Trump's strong alpha-male nature led him to screw up a couple of marriages, but he sure as hell didn't allow that to interfere with raising his kids. Which goes to show you, good character is not a replacement for inherent human nature. It is a discipliner of it. Political ideology is a worse master since it imposes conditions from the outside, not chooses them the inside. The best of all worlds is good character plus good political ideology. In an emergency like we have today, if I can't have both with all the details aligned according to the way the ideology is stated, give me the man with good character and competence any day of the week. He can learn good political ideology. It is much harder for the man with bad character but good political ideology to learn good character. And in an emergency, there are simply too many moving parts to constantly keep up with personal ambitions of the man with bad character. I see Donald Trump as a man with excellent character and not a political ideologue. However, he has shown a lot of interest in acquiring theoretical knowledge about freedom, the moral requirements of capitalism, and so on. As a man of good character with a resume of achievements to kill for, it's a pretty good bet he will learn this stuff and abide by it, at least to the extent it makes sense to him. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Greg, Read any Donald Trump book, any one at all, and you will see that self-responsibility is a critical part of self-development I just ordered "The Art of the Deal", Michael... and look forward to reading it. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Greg wrote: This reminds me of the insanely heightened expectations 8 years ago for Obama, the Black Messiah. Politically, the two are totally flipside. Ok, now it's a White Messiah... but essentially they're exactly the same unreasonable expectation. end quote BC, before Christ. AD, anno domini - after Christ. Wiki says we did not start using those abbrev. until around 800 AD after Christianity became the West’s dominant, totalitarian religion. I watched Terminator 3 again last night. It was depressing too. Time for something depressingly, NEW? BT, before Trump. DT-AI, during the Trump - American implosion. AT, after Trump. Hopefully the world won’t be back to the dystopian world in “Anthem.” Indiana, pull us back from the abyss! One more gripe. Trump won the northeast in the Republican primaries but will lose it in a general election. Trump is projected to win California in the primary but projected to lose California to Old Hickory Clinton in the general election. Somehow the Trump balloon will crush the Hillary cactus. Michael wrote: And this is a beef I have with the ideological world, both left and right. They want reality referents to come cloaked in their own jargon. end quote I agree. I see myself trying to explain your support for Trump assuming you have a Randian mindset. Referents? I don't got to show you know stinking referents! We see the same facts, so why don’t you view Trump the same way I do? I attribute it to my increased brain growth and rationality because I was breast fed. On the bright side, a campaign with Trump will be a barrel of monkeys. I hope we laugh all way to the bank. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, Peter said: I see myself trying to explain your support for Trump assuming you have a Randian mindset. Peter, I do have a Randian mindset, which is why I can see what I do. The mistake I don't make is to ignore a big honking skyscraper right in front of me, or worse, think it was built by accident or corruption because the guy who built it doesn't talk about sanction of the victim or A is A (or, the other way, individual rights, small government, taxation is theft, etc.). It takes a lot of focus and commitment to rationality over the long haul to build things like that (on time, under budget, top quality) and keep them running well. Not just one, but a whole lot of them. Over decades and decades. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 31 minutes ago, Peter said: Greg wrote: This reminds me of the insanely heightened expectations 8 years ago for Obama, the Black Messiah. Politically, the two are totally flipside. Ok, now it's a White Messiah... but essentially they're exactly the same unreasonable expectation. end quote BC, before Christ. AD, anno domini - after Christ. Wiki says we did not start using those abbrev. until around 800 AD after Christianity became the West’s dominant, totalitarian religion. I watched Terminator 3 again last night. It was depressing too. Time for something depressingly, NEW? BT, before Trump. DT-AI, during the Trump - American implosion. AT, after Trump. Hopefully the world won’t be back to the dystopian world in “Anthem.” Indiana, pull us back from the abyss! One more gripe. Trump won the northeast in the Republican primaries but will lose it in a general election. Trump is projected to win California in the primary but projected to lose California to Old Hickory Clinton in the general election. Somehow the Trump balloon will crush the Hillary cactus. Michael wrote: And this is a beef I have with the ideological world, both left and right. They want reality referents to come cloaked in their own jargon. end quote I agree. I see myself trying to explain your support for Trump assuming you have a Randian mindset. Referents? I don't got to show you know stinking referents! We see the same facts, so why don’t you view Trump the same way I do? I attribute it to my increased brain growth and rationality because I was breast fed. On the bright side, a campaign with Trump will be a barrel of monkeys. I hope we laugh all way to the bank. Peter I will... ...just as I've always done regardless of who is President. The ONLY real solution is to learn how to live by American values. For they are the ONLY virtues which have the power to render the government irrelevant to the quality of your own life. Everything else is just useless meaningless political bitching. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 hour ago, moralist said: Brant, I discovered that the government does leave me alone... when I leave it alone. The scariest thing for government is people who don't need it... because it's ONLY control over people is through their NEED of it. NO need... NO control. Not needing the government is a uniquely American value. Greg, It occurred to me that Trump found a great way for government to leave him alone. When you build projects the size Trump does, there is no way to avoid colliding against the restrictions the government imposes. So what did Trump do? Over his lifetime, he simply bought the politicians (using money, prestige, fame, whatever currency he had that they wanted) to get them out of his way. Then it didn't matter what the law said. And then he built. From looking at the size of his political donations, he got off cheap, too. In fact, that's where Club for Growth went off the rails in trying to blackmail him. Trump's donation amounts were hardly ever large sums. He normally gave out donation amounts like $50k a pop tops. At the start of his campaign, Club for Growth insisted on a cool million and made it clear he would never win without them. Trump told them to take a hike (to use a euphemism ) and the rest is history. I am pretty sure Trump is going to govern that way when he needs to employ extra-deal persuasion against entrenched political obstacles. He'll squeeze his opponents on things they value that he controls, and cajole them with SMALL incentives--preferably not money--instead of the hog trough they are used to. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I remember him talking about this in interviews in the terms I said (unless my memory is wrong and I don't think it is). There have been so many interviews, finding where he talked about this would be a hassle, but if anyone wishes to look, the videos are out there. I recall it from last year. Michael, You say that you've kept on pointing to the sources that refute my arguments. In many cases, you haven't. You've either dropped the discussion, or just proclaimed that you see something with your own two eyes. If Donald Trump has in fact said any of the things about Social Security that you attribute to him, beyond it MUST BE PRESERVED and it WILL BE FULLY FUNDED, and he has done so during NTE 1, you should be able to find at least one interview (video, audio, text) and link to it. You are, after all, by far the greater expert on Donald Trump. Otherwise, the reasonable inference is that you're talking about your position on the matter, not his. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Greg, what has always appealed to me about Rand’s philosophy is its ability to explain the bigger picture without being irrational like some of Kant’s and Nietzsche’s philosophy, or religion's dubious beginnings and mirages. Rand begins with self - evident axioms proven by observation and history. Objectivism successfully links to science and reality. Michael wrote: It takes a lot of focus and commitment to rationality over the long haul to build things like that (on time, under budget, top quality) and keep them running well. Not just one, but a whole lot of them. Over decades and decades. end quote I hopefully agree with you. Trump’s life, spent creating and building, with its showmanship, provides the axioms for a President who will make America great again. Well, it could happen : -) And there is no necessary link between being a politician and doing what WE want through government. Governors say they have the prerequisite executive experience, but so does Trump because in a very real sense he built the state he governs in: Trump Enterprises. It is time to change the water in the dog’s bowl. I will support the most conservative, most electable candidate. The following had some hits and misses but he was funny. Peter Edited for brevity. Looking Back On How Donald Trump Beat Hillary Clinton by Kurt Schlichter Posted: May 02, 2016 12:01 AM:. . . . Looking back 25 years ago to the election of 2016, it is clear that Clinton’s campaign team was badly mistaken when it thought that the vast middle of American politics would blame the Republicans for the violence outside the convention. Every pinko, commie, and socialist freak with a cause and a Soros subsidy descended upon Cleveland, and the ensuing chaos was supposed to show that Donald Trump brought violence and disorder in his wake. The Democrat lovefest to follow was supposed to provide a stark contrast, with Hillary bringing peace and blessed calm. But Americans didn’t see it that way. In 1968, the Democrats showed themselves incapable of maintaining order in a Democrat city with a Democrat president. This time, it was a Democrat city and a Democrat president allowing their allies to violently assault their political opponents. “The cops, I love the Cleveland cops, but the mayor, the Democrat mayor of Cleveland, a very bad mayor, is ordering them to stand down,” shouted the nominee during his extemporaneous nomination speech. “Just like Benghazi! What is it with Democrats telling our beautiful military and cops to always stand down? Sad!” Of course, Trump had no evidence of any such order, but it sounded like it might be true and that was enough . . . . The media was baffled, and Clinton terrified, when Trump roared out of the convention averaging just three points back in the polls – 45 to 42. The networks’ wall-to-wall coverage of the chaos in Cleveland was supposed to bury Trump, but instead he had used that bully pulpit to show one thing she couldn’t: Toughness in the face of progressive thugs . . . . When the Department of Justice shocked no one by refusing to indict Hillary, Trump was on it: “I talked to many, many military people who tell me this is a scandal, a disgrace. If you or I did what Hillary did we’d be in jail so fast…but this is how it works in D.C. If you are connected like Hillary, part of the establishment, you have special rules. Sad!” He touched a nerve. “No special treatment for bigshots! That’s not right and I’ll stop it!” he promised. It was then that Trump pulled slightly ahead, though within the margin of error. Hillary initially refused to debate Trump. “I will not give a platform to his kind of sexist hate speech,” she intoned, and Trump pounced. “I used to call her Crooked Hillary, which she is, and Naggin’ Hillary, and she’s still naggy, believe me, she nags us all the time! But now I call her Scared Hillary because she’s scared of me. And if she’s scared of me, how is she going to stand up to the very bad people out there and protect America? I mean, I wish she had been Scared Hillary back when she voted to invade Iraq, which was a disaster. But we can’t have our wonderful military under someone who is so scared. We need someone who’ll stand up and defend our country, which she is scared to do. Sad!” Hillary finally agreed to a debate, and it was a disaster. She was prim, prepared, and utterly stiff while Trump was loose, limber, and lacerating. She called him sexist, and he went for the throat: “I love women, not like your husband did, which was very shameful and which you tolerated. And a lot of young people who weren’t around then don’t know about how you covered up when Bill behaved very badly to women but when they learn about it it’s going to be very bad for you because you were very bad to the women. And everyone knows if you weren’t a woman you wouldn’t even be here. Sad!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Just now, Robert Campbell said: If Donald Trump has in fact said any of the things about Social Security that you attribute to him, beyond it MUST BE PRESERVED and it WILL BE FULLY FUNDED, and he has done so during NTE 1, you should be able to find at least one interview (video, audio, text) and link to it. You are, after all, by far the greater expert on Donald Trump. Otherwise, the reasonable inference is that you're talking about your position on the matter, not his. Robert, Yeah, right. I'm lying in your face to win an argument. Gimme a break. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Peter said: I will support the most conservative, most electable candidate. Peter, Does this help? I will defeat Crooked Hillary Clinton on 11/8/2016. #Trump2016#MakeAmericaGreatAgain pic.twitter.com/HtwD1FGn9e— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 2, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 hour ago, moralist said: Brant, I discovered that the government does leave me alone... when I leave it alone. The scariest thing for government is people who don't need it... because it's ONLY control over people is through their NEED of it. NO need... NO control. Not needing the government is a uniquely American value. Greg So far. Keep your name and address off the board of public awareness. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Peter, Does this help? Michael There goes their friendship, if there ever was any. --Brant ya think they're gonna tweak the OL software anytime soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 18 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: If Donald Trump has in fact said any of the things about Social Security that you attribute to him... Robert, Just on a quick Google search, I came across the principle of honoring the deal as Trump's moral basis for supporting Social Security. See here from Market Watch last year: A quote in Trump's own words (my bold): Donald Trump said: Social Security faces a problem: 77 million baby boomers are set to retire. Now I know there are some Republicans who would be just fine with allowing these programs to wither and die on the vine. The way they see it, Social Security and Medicare are wasteful "entitlement programs." But people who think this way need to rethink their position. It's not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their money's worth — that's not an "entitlement," that's honoring a deal. If I keep digging, I am sure I will come across the point of gradually phasing it out. But is this worth my time? Keeerrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiist. Are you giving out homework, now, and framing it by insinuating people are liars? What value do I get out of this? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 I see that Jon is not interested in netting out the principles expressed in Donald Trump's magnificent foreign policy speech. So let's try a simpler exercise. Here are two small portions: Quote Secondly, our allies are not paying their fair share. Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so. They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us. In NATO, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries, besides America, are spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defense. We have spent trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. The whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security. A Trump Administration will lead a free world that is properly armed and funded. Thirdly, our friends are beginning to think they can’t depend on us. We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies. He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms, even before the ink was dry. Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and, under a Trump Administration, will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. All of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the United States with Iran’s treatment of our ten captured sailors. In negotiation, you must be willing to walk. The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table. When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win. At the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. President Obama gutted our missile defense program, then abandoned our missile defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic. He supported the ouster of a friendly regime in Egypt that had a longstanding peace treaty with Israel – and then helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in its place. Israel, our great friend and the one true Democracy in the Middle East, has been snubbed and criticized by an Administration that lacks moral clarity. Just a few days ago, Vice President Biden again criticized Israel – a force for justice and peace – for acting as an impediment to peace in the region. President Obama has not been a friend to Israel. He has treated Iran with tender love and care and made it a great power in the Middle East – all at the expense of Israel, our other allies in the region and, critically, the United States. We’ve picked fights with our oldest friends, and now they’re starting to look elsewhere for help. By the way, accepting the option to reformat the material gets rid of all the extra blank lines that Brant complained of. Of course, it also kills italics and bold (I restored them to the headers). Now, if France and Germany and Slovenia aren't putting sufficient resources into their respective militaries, what does President Trump do to make sure they commit their fair share? And how does he do it without further convincing them that they can't depend on the United States? This is just one stretch of the speech for which I cannot find a meaning that is noncontradictory. But I don't like Donald Trump. Surely those who admire him, and understand him far better than I, can find the noncontradictory meaning. Bonus item 1: Trump rips Obama for pulling the plug on missile defense systems for Poland and the Czech Republic. But wouldn't going ahead on those systems have contributed mightily to the very "cycle of hostility" with the Putinian empire that Trump deplores elsewhere in the speech? Bonus Item 2: Trump says, "Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and... will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." Do you think that anyone, even the author of The Art of the Deal, can employ diplomatic means to get the Ruling Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his lieutenants to give up on getting nuclear weapons? If so, how? If not, are we to read this statement as a promise that a Trump administration will send American troops into war against Iran? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Sycophancy, thy name is... http://www.mediaite.com/online/coulter-trump-gave-best-foreign-policy-speech-since-washingtons-farewell-address/ I have never been an admirer of Ann Coulter. I have never bought one of her books. I often change channels when she is the next talking head. Her entire career has been built on cheap shots and mean-spirited remarks. Even with her training as a lawyer, I figure she has to practice them each morning in front of a mirror to stay in form. And, really, she should stick with the barbs. Enough people like them to bring her fame and money. She is embarrassingly bad at praise. Whenever she attempts it, she goes all sycophantic. She was all sycophantic for Mittens, four years ago. She's all sycophantic for Donald, now. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Here ya' go, Robert: Trump now has 3 surefire ways to finish off Cruz: 1) Indiana; 2) California; 3) Garlic and Crucifixes.— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) May 2, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Oh, and by the way for those interested. Trump is still winning. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Au sujet de la politique étrangère des États-Unis ... En la política exterior de los Estados Unidos ... On the subject of American foreign policy ... On 5/1/2016 at 3:46 PM, william.scherk said: On 5/1/2016 at 1:21 PM, Robert Campbell said: Is this [Drumpf Nuke Gabble Wonk] clip unedited? I believe it is unedited -- but I will track down a longer version of the town hall and compare. He was speaking of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal [...] @ 28:45ish ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 The man nobody wants to talk about. None of the Trumpians hereabouts have shown much interest in Paul Manafort. Not even when he appears to contradict his boss: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/manafort-tells-rnc-trump-has-different-private-persona-n560186 He worked for Ronald Reagan once. He will insure Donald's triumph now. Leave it at that. The guy actually has a much more interesting résumé: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/paul_manafort_isn_t_a_gop_retread_he_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html The author is a Leftist, formerly with the New Republic. So there are occasional obligatory shots (for instance, at Ronald Reagen's 1980 campaign, insinuating racist appeals without evidence). They don't matter, because he's done his homework. Paul Manafort didn't just work for Bob Dole (or for Jerry Ford against Ronald Reagan, before he worked for Reagan). He worked for Mobutu Sese Seko, Ferdinand Marcos, at least one dictator out of the dynasty that's ruled Equatorial Guinea, and Mohammad Siad Barré (the last dictator of Somalia). He worked for Viktor Yanukovych. Visited him many times, at the gilded palace mentioned upthread. Whenever I've brought up Yanukovych, he's been the client nobody wants to talk about. Forget about Donald Trump's alleged integrity here. Just focus on the expedient for a minute. Why would a guy who expects to be the nominee, running against Hillary Clinton, employ the services of a man who has accepted large sums from foreign dictators and Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs? The Clinton Slush Fund Foundation has accepted large sums from foreign dictators and Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: None of the Trumpians hereabouts have shown much interest in Paul Manafort. I've talked about Paul Manafort. Even posted a few videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 49 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: I see that Jon is not interested in netting out the principles expressed in Donald Trump's magnificent foreign policy speech. So let's try a simpler exercise. I'm gonna guess Jon might have other Purposes than your own. But I'm emotionally affected that my assignment had a word count requirement while Jon's didn't. Oh well, there's always the student union. 59 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: But I don't like Donald Trump. 48 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: I have never been an admirer of Ann Coulter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 This is from the only other non-financial idea site I go to regularly. I also pay to do so. It's a freebie: http://www.tothepointnews.com/2016/04/trump-treason-and-the-taliban/ Jack Wheeler hates Trump's guts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: [...] netting out the principles expressed in Donald Drumpf's magnificent foreign policy speech. The principles-in-gestation are numbered 1 to 5. Here is a neutrally-rendered version of the full-text remarks: Bear in mind the difference between the words as written for the Teleprompter, and the candidate's spontaneous additions. Believe me, I am the best at everything I touch. Believe me. Believe me. Believe me. He done got me hypmotized, I tell ya. Here is mah man, again: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: Paul Manafort didn't just work for Bob Dole (or for Jerry Ford against Ronald Reagan, before he worked for Reagan). He worked for Mobutu Sese Seko, Ferdinand Marcos, at least one dictator out of the dynasty that's ruled Equatorial Guinea, and Mohammad Siad Barré (the last dictator of Somalia). He worked for Viktor Yanukovych. Visited him many times, at the gilded palace mentioned upthread. Whenever I've brought up Yanukovych, he's been the client nobody wants to talk about. Forget about Donald Trump's alleged integrity here. Just focus on the expedient for a minute. McCarthyism? Yah. Time to start another blacklist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now