Donald Trump

[Peter]

Progressive newscaster Brian Williams said the attack was “beautiful.” I must say as far as national defense (and attack) goes, after the raid on Syria, I am glad President Trump beat Ted Cruz in the primary . . . as long as (as Rand Paul just said) he should now consult with Congress about this and for the next time. I understand it to be an “emergency situation.” It was a master stroke and his whole group of defense advisors and military advisors were on board.

Peter

[Marc]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Progressive newscaster Brian Williams said the attack was “beautiful.” I must say as far as national defense (and attack) goes, after the raid on Syria, I am glad President Trump beat Ted Cruz in the primary . . . as long as (as Rand Paul just said) he should now consult with Congress about this and for the next time. I understand it to be an “emergency situation.” It was a master stroke and his whole group of defense advisors and military advisors were on board.

Peter

I say that your post was " beautiful " ! 

[Peter]

What’s next? Will this deter that monster, Assad? I think it may, if Russia (and China the enabler of North Korea) can rejoin the civilized nations and stop supporting terrorists and totalitarian monsters.

Peter

Excerpt from “Why Israelis are happy about Trump’s missile strike — and why they should be wary:” Tomahawk attack on Assad military base sends strong message, but the fallout could ultimately affect Israel’s ability to operate against Hezbollah By Ron Kampeas April 8, 2017, 3:28 am. WASHINGTON (JTA) — Israel’s government and pundits are unabashedly pleased by the missile strike ordered by President Donald Trump early Friday on the Syrian airfield from where Tuesday’s deadly chemical attack is believed to have been launched. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put out a statement out at 6 a.m. local time – unusually early – just to make clear he “fully supports” the strike. “In both word and action, President Trump sent a strong and clear message today that the use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated,” he said. Trump ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles on the airfield in northern Syria believed to be where a sarin attack was launched that killed at least 72 civilians, including many children. The missile attack, Syria said in reports that could not be confirmed, killed nine civilians – including four children – and six troops, and caused extensive damage.

The moral imperative. Images of children gassed a few hundred miles north of Israel hits close to home for a country where the helplessness that Jews faced against the Nazi genocide remains a defining national characteristic. “There was a genuinely strongly felt moral issue, and that was something that Israelis felt across the political spectrum when the pictures emerged of people killed in the chemical attack, given the Jewish people’s history of being gassed in the Holocaust,” said Daniel Shapiro, who until January was the US ambassador to Israel and still lives there. Israelis in just days have raised hundreds of thousands of shekels for the victims; fundraisers have explicitly invoked Holocaust imagery. “No Jew can stay silent as children are being gassed in the streets of Syria,”

The sheriff is back in town. Israelis were frustrated by the Obama administration’s hesitancy in confronting Assad. In 2013, President Barack Obama said the use of chemical weapons would trigger an attack. But when Syria crossed the line, instead of launching an attack, Obama coordinated a deal with Russia under which Syria would divest itself of its chemical weaponry. It now appears clear to the United States and its allies that Syria’s divestment was more fraud than fact . . . . Trump over the last three days did a 180 on Assad – “My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,” the president said the day after the chemical attack — and so, commensurately, have Israelis warmed to Trump.

What’s not predictable?  Do Israeli jets still get to take out potential threats without triggering a Russian response? An ally of the Assad regime, Russia was furious at the missile attack and suspended its “deconfliction” agreement with the United States – one under which the two nations give each other prior notice of any military action, particularly from the air, so there’s no risk of an inadvertent clash. Russia has a similar arrangement with Israel; does that go by the wayside? Israel as recently as last month sent jets into Syria to stop the smuggling of Syrian arms to Hezbollah. Gilad, speaking on Israel Radio, said he was confident that Russia would continue to allow Israel to act. “I don’t think there’s any threat on Israeli action as long as it in the defense of Israel’s interests,” he said.

Is Israel more of a target than before? . . . .  end quote

[Peter]

Marc said: “I say that your post was "beautiful"!”

To reiterate and relive the moment, when I saw the “breaking news” scroll across the TV and then Scott Pelley speaking emotionally about the Syrian strike, I went from, oh crap, to hmmm? To damn, he did it. The timing of it was a thing to behold. I still wonder if he will “take out” Assad or order the Russians to deport him to Moscow . . . or else. But still, I am not a violent or ghoulish sort. The Russians lied. Assad lied. Weigh the options President Trump. I back you.

Peter    

Proud To Be An American by Lee Greenwood.

If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.

I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘ Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.

From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.

That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 minutes ago, Peter said:

Marc said: “I say that your post was "beautiful"!”

To reiterate and relive the moment, when I saw the “breaking news” scroll across the TV and then Scott Pelley speaking emotionally about the Syrian strike, I went from, oh crap, to hmmm? To damn, he did it. The timing of it was a thing to behold. I still wonder if he will “take out” Assad or order the Russians to deport him to Moscow . . . or else. But still, I am not a violent or ghoulish sort. The Russians lied. Assad lied. Weigh the options President Trump. I back you.

Peter    

Proud To Be An American by Lee Greenwood.

If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.

I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘ Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.

From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.

That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

Our Donald,  a man-boy has decided to take part in a pissing contest.  He is not going to allow the world to think that Putin has a bigger dick than he does. Or so it seems to me.

[Marc]

I heard Kate Smith sing God Bless America and Lauren Hart right be her side for special Ws ! 

 

 

 

[Peter]

Hello Ba’al. This is Tom Hanks. Remember me in the movie, “Castaway?” Geez, Wilson  . . . er . . . I mean Ba’al. How can you say that about The President? He may be the most calculating President since . . . since you . . .  but you never ran. So we have a guy who is one step ahead, nearly always. He is patriotic and inspiring.  He is a superior human who was treated like royalty even before he became President. So, I must say, “Oh come on, be honest!”

You are looking out the window. President Trump pulls up to your house in a government limousine with a flat tire, and he walks to your door and says “Hello, I am your President and I have a flat tire. And I need to pee. May I use your bathroom?”

What are you going to say? And be honest. Your fans really do want to know what you would say and do.

Peter     

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, Peter said:

Hello Ba’al. This is Tom Hanks. Remember me in the movie, “Castaway?” Geez, Wilson  . . . er . . . I mean Ba’al. How can you say that about The President? He may be the most calculating President since . . . since you . . .  but you never ran. So we have a guy who is one step ahead, nearly always. He is patriotic and inspiring.  He is a superior human who was treated like royalty even before he became President. So, I must say, “Oh come on, be honest!”

You are looking out the window. President Trump pulls up to your house in a government limousine with a flat tire, and he walks to your door and says “Hello, I am your President and I have a flat tire. And I need to pee. May I use your bathroom?”

What are you going to say? And be honest. Your fans really do want to know what you would say and do.

Peter     

I would say  "Fuck off.  I voted for you and that is all you get from me". 

[Marc]

8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I would say  "Fuck off.  I voted for you and that is all you get from me". 

Love it !!!!!!!!!! The people did indeed vote in President Trump 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Marc said:

Love it !!!!!!!!!! The people did indeed vote in President Trump 

More people voted for The Hillary.  About 3.5  million more.

[Marc]

Point being ?????

[Peter]

Point being? Hmmmm? That 3.5 mil. pop. vote win can be explained by NYC and Los Angeles County. I think that the Hillary voters are very, very glad Trump won. That is what they are whispering amongst themselves. Pssst! I would vote for him again.

From the net: Poll: Majority of Americans Approve of Syria Airstrikes, Want Congressional Approval for Further Action.

That makes sense. Now that Iran, Russia, and Syria have formed a coalition the road is clearer. Perhaps we will favor China over Russia, since we have such a large deal of trade with them. What trade do we have with Russia? Nyet. Nada. And I hope Trump never gives communist Cuba the time of day, or a red cent. Why pay tribute to monsters like the Castro brothers? Spicer, in a news conference just said President Trump’s policy is still, “America First.:

Peter

Kill a Chicken to Scare Monkeys? It kind of has ring to it, doesn’t it.

Trump's Foreign Policy Act I: Kill a Chicken to Scare Monkeys by Helen Raleigh, Posted: Apr 09, 2017 12:01 AM: "To kill a chicken to scare monkeys" is a famous Chinese military strategy, and is often attributed to one of the greatest military strategists who ever lived, Sun Tzu, author of the famous treatise, The Art of War. This particular strategy is designed to send a message (often a warning) to powerful enemies by attacking a smaller, weaker power first.  I don't know if Trump, the author of The Art of The Deal, ever read The Art of War, but his surprising air strike on Syria on April 6th, 2017, clearly achieved a similar effect to this ancient strategy.

Many political pundits worried that the air strike is a prelude to the U.S. deepening its involvement in the war with the Assad regime. I think they miss the point. If Trump's intention is to go to war with Assad, he could have waited until Chinese president Xi left Mar-a-Lago.  Instead, he chose to strike Assad on the eve of the much hyped summit with Xi. The timing of the strike didn't seem like a coincidence. While the target of air strike was Syria (the "chicken"), the underline message was intended for China and its client state, North Korea (the "Monkeys"). Trump had every intention to give the Xi a front seat to witness America's military might and his own willingness to take swift and decisive actions alone. Unlike President Obama, Trump made it loud and clear that he's nobody's pushover.

Another curious thing Trump did on the same evening was to leave Xi alone right after state dinner and hold a press conference on the air strike in Syria. Xi and the Chinese delegates most likely view Trump's action as a perceived slight. High level political events such as this are usually highly scripted and full of protocols.  One of Xi's ultimate personal visions is to return China to its former glory as a super power in the world.  As the world's second largest economy, many in China, probably including Xi, believe that China has already achieved such superpower status and therefore, China should be treated as America's equal with respect. Trump, on the other hand, by taking care of business in Syria while meeting Xi, probably was sending his Chinese guest a not so subtle hint that the U.S. - China relationship isn't his highest priority. 

During his press conference, Trump called on "all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria." President Xi was curiously silent on the whole matter. He missed a great opportunity to act like a global leader. If he believes that it's China's rightful place to be a superpower, he has to remember that, as Uncle Ben told Spiderman, "with great power comes great responsibility." China can't just have all the prestige of being a super power while taking no stands against any rouge regime in the name of non-intervention in other nation's "domestic affairs." . . . . . 

[BaalChatzaf]

46 minutes ago, Peter said:

Point being? Hmmmm? That 3.5 mil. pop. vote win can be explained by NYC and Los Angeles County. I think that the Hillary voters are very, very glad Trump won. That is what they are whispering amongst themselves. Pssst! I would vote for him again.

From the net: Poll: Majority of Americans Approve of Syria Airstrikes, Want Congressional Approval for Further Action.

That makes sense. Now that Iran, Russia, and Syria have formed a coalition the road is clearer. Perhaps we will favor China over Russia, since we have such a large deal of trade with them. What trade do we have with Russia? Nyet. Nada. And I hope Trump never gives communist Cuba the time of day, or a red cent. Why pay tribute to monsters like the Castro brothers? Spicer, in a news conference just said President Trump’s policy is still, “America First.:

Peter

Kill a Chicken to Scare Monkeys? It kind of has ring to it, doesn’t it.

Trump's Foreign Policy Act I: Kill a Chicken to Scare Monkeys by Helen Raleigh, Posted: Apr 09, 2017 12:01 AM: "To kill a chicken to scare monkeys" is a famous Chinese military strategy, and is often attributed to one of the greatest military strategists who ever lived, Sun Tzu, author of the famous treatise, The Art of War. This particular strategy is designed to send a message (often a warning) to powerful enemies by attacking a smaller, weaker power first.  I don't know if Trump, the author of The Art of The Deal, ever read The Art of War, but his surprising air strike on Syria on April 6th, 2017, clearly achieved a similar effect to this ancient strategy.

Many political pundits worried that the air strike is a prelude to the U.S. deepening its involvement in the war with the Assad regime. I think they miss the point. If Trump's intention is to go to war with Assad, he could have waited until Chinese president Xi left Mar-a-Lago.  Instead, he chose to strike Assad on the eve of the much hyped summit with Xi. The timing of the strike didn't seem like a coincidence. While the target of air strike was Syria (the "chicken"), the underline message was intended for China and its client state, North Korea (the "Monkeys"). Trump had every intention to give the Xi a front seat to witness America's military might and his own willingness to take swift and decisive actions alone. Unlike President Obama, Trump made it loud and clear that he's nobody's pushover.

Another curious thing Trump did on the same evening was to leave Xi alone right after state dinner and hold a press conference on the air strike in Syria. Xi and the Chinese delegates most likely view Trump's action as a perceived slight. High level political events such as this are usually highly scripted and full of protocols.  One of Xi's ultimate personal visions is to return China to its former glory as a super power in the world.  As the world's second largest economy, many in China, probably including Xi, believe that China has already achieved such superpower status and therefore, China should be treated as America's equal with respect. Trump, on the other hand, by taking care of business in Syria while meeting Xi, probably was sending his Chinese guest a not so subtle hint that the U.S. - China relationship isn't his highest priority. 

During his press conference, Trump called on "all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria." President Xi was curiously silent on the whole matter. He missed a great opportunity to act like a global leader. If he believes that it's China's rightful place to be a superpower, he has to remember that, as Uncle Ben told Spiderman, "with great power comes great responsibility." China can't just have all the prestige of being a super power while taking no stands against any rouge regime in the name of non-intervention in other nation's "domestic affairs." . . . . . 

How well did Libya  turn out after Qadaffi was terminated with extreme prejudice?

[Marc]

Isn't the whole point of elector college votes , so I don't have to hear about the popular vote ? Who cares ?

 

Peter , Brilliant post !!!!!!!!!

 

dpnt get me started on Libya though , I gotta make money today 

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: How well did Libya turn out after Qadaffi was terminated with extreme prejudice? end quote

Captain?

Yes, Commander Tuvoc?

I think I have been in this region of space before.

How is that possible?

I seem to have acquired telepathy and precognition, Mon Captitan. And a sense of humor.

There is never a guarantee. An example is Iraq. An influx of muscle and philosophy during Dubya Bush’s *nation building* has enriched the Iraqi’s lives and ensured statehood . . . for now. Yet they have no history of human rights or Constitutionality. And the terrorists always emerge from under their rocks, whenever weakness is perceived. But if you were an Iraqi I think you would be glad you are without a bloody dictator. They are ready to fight for freedom.

Unfortunately the arts of state’s craft and diplomacy seem to lag behind the science used at dating sites, so we were prompted to use warfare against Assad, ticking off other dictatorships. Why is Russia using this to alienate Uncle Sam? Why support a monster like Assad? Fear of a vacuum or a quest for hegemony? Of course Vlad is playing the New Russian Empire card, in a way like our own calculating Henry Kissinger.

And Trump does not give a damn, in an emotional sense. Remember the cinematic toast between General Patton and a Russian general, and the look of fake friendship and extreme wariness in their eyes? That has not changed. They have nukes but WE are the superpower.

Peter

[anthony]

19 hours ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: How well did Libya turn out after Qadaffi was terminated with extreme prejudice? end quote

Captain?

Yes, Commander Tuvoc?

I think I have been in this region of space before.

How is that possible?

I seem to have acquired telepathy and precognition, Mon Captitan. And a sense of humor.

There is never a guarantee. An example is Iraq. An influx of muscle and philosophy during Dubya Bush’s *nation building* has enriched the Iraqi’s lives and ensured statehood . . . for now. Yet they have no history of human rights or Constitutionality. And the terrorists always emerge from under their rocks, whenever weakness is perceived. But if you were an Iraqi I think you would be glad you are without a bloody dictator. They are ready to fight for freedom.

 

Peter

Peter: Worse than dictatorship is the uncertainty, death, disruption and chaos of long civil wars. A lesson learned is that democracy cannot be presented or conferred (or coerced). It has to be desired and deserved by most of the people - except "most" of whom in many countries prefer a strongman in power--for traditional tribalist or pragmatic reasons. They understand their own types and the alternatives. Every dictator too realises he must permit some stability. At least we knew where we stand with a known dictator. What follows him?

You said it, "terrorists always emerge..whenever weakness is perceived".

Even after a democracy is voluntarily installed there are no guarantees, as I see in Africa. Democracy is no magic bullet.

[BaalChatzaf]

42 minutes ago, anthony said:

Peter: Worse than dictatorship is the uncertainty, death, disruption and chaos of long civil wars. A lesson learned is that democracy cannot be presented or conferred (or coerced). It has to be desired and deserved by most of the people - except "most" of whom in many countries prefer a strongman in power--for traditional tribalist or pragmatic reasons. They understand their own types and the alternatives. Every dictator too realises he must permit some stability. At least we knew where we stand with a known dictator. What follows him?

You said it, "terrorists always emerge..whenever weakness is perceived".

Even after a democracy is voluntarily installed there are no guarantees, as I see in Africa. Democracy is no magic bullet.

Democracy  is a terrible bad form of government.  However most of the other forms are worse.  I would rather have a republic that lives under a sane set of laws. 

[Peter]

A business mag just wrote a small piece below about any war with North Korea and it was estimated that it would cost 90,000 U.S. servicemen’s lives . . . . but I say, “Maybe not.” The north has a small number of nukes and they have thousands of artillery pieces in mountain bunkers along the DMZ,  a huge army and another 5 million reservists who have undergone mandatory training and 10 years service in the North Korean army.

My way of dealing with a war with the North would be to have multiple A Bomb strikes against all of their nuclear facilities, and simultaneously against all of Kim Jong Un’s many deep bunker locations and the bunkered artillery on the DMZ, his small navy with its few submarines, and all of their food warehouses.

The South Koreans can tell by their accent if someone is from the north, but prepare for infiltrators and a mass ground attack from hundreds of thousands, if not a million, North Korean troops. Again, nuclear weapons should be used to minimize the loss of South Korean and American lives. This could shorten the conflict to a month or less. But there could be infiltrators, for months trying to conduct guerrilla warfare. Any broadcasts from Kim Jong Un would signal another strike against a hidden bunker.

Or China can stop Kim Jung Un through a coup after initiating a trade ban which might last a year. For now, Tweets, like President Trump’s, “I am sending an armada to handle North Korea,” would keep the north hunkered down and worried, and expending their limited supplies. Another strong possibility, is that during this process, The North will try a sneak attack.  

Peter      
 

Some excerpts from Business Insider: The US is considering a direct strike against North Korea — here’s how it would go down by Alex Lockie Mar. 4, 2017, 12:16 PM. The best tools the US could use against North Korea would be stealth aircraft like the F-22 and B-2 bomber, according to Tack. The US would slowly but surely position submarines, Navy ships, and stealth aircraft at bases near North Korea in ways that avoid provoking the Hermit Kingdom's suspicions. Then, when the time was right, bombers would rip across the sky and ships would let loose with an awesome volley of firepower. The US already has considerable combat capability amassed in the region. "Suddenly you'd read on the news that the US has conducted these airstrikes," said Tack. While the F-22 and F-35 would certainly do work over North Korea missile production sites, it really is a job for the B-2. As a long-range stealth bomber with a huge ordnance capacity, the B-2 could drop massive, 30,000 pound bombs on deep underground bunkers in North Korea — and they could do it from as far away as Guam or the continental United States.

The initial targets would include nuclear reactors, missile production facilities, and launching pads for ICBMs, according to Tack. Cruise missiles would pour in from the sea, F-22s would beat down North Korea's rudimentary air defenses, and B-2s would pound every known missile site into dust. Planes like the F-35 and F-22 would frantically hunt down mobile missile launchers, which can hide all over North Korea's mountainous terrain. In the event that North Korea does get off a missile, the US and South Korea have layered missile defenses that would attempt to shoot it out of the sky. 

Next, the US would try to limit North Korean retaliation. Once the US has committed the initial strike against North Korea, how does Kim Jong-un respond? Even with its nuclear facilities in ashes and the majority of their command and control destroyed "North Korea has a lot of options," said Tack. "They have their massive, massive conventional artillery options that can start firing at South Korea in a split second." But as the graphic below shows, most North Korean artillery can't reach Seoul, South Korea's capital. Additionally, Seoul has significant underground bunkers and infrastructure to quickly protect its citizens, though some measure of damage to the city would be unavoidable. 

According to Tack, much of this artillery would instead fire on the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas, detonating mines so that North Korean ground forces can push through. Also within range would be US forces near the DMZ. Some 25,000 American soldiers are stationed in South Korea, all of whom would face grave danger from North Korea's vast artillery installations. But the North Korean artillery isn't top of the line. They could focus on slamming US forces, or they could focus on hitting Seoul. Splitting fire between the two targets would limit the impact of their longer-range systems. Additionally, as the artillery starts to fire, it becomes and exposed sitting duck for US jets overhead. "Decapitation" or the removal of the Kim regime would be a huge blow to the fiercely autocratic Hermit Kingdom.

Kim Jong-un has reportedly engaged in a vicious campaign to execute senior officials with packs of dogs, mortar fire, and anti-aircraft guns for a simple reason — they have ties to China, according to Tack. Jong-un's removal of anyone senior with ties to China means that he has consolidated power within his country to a degree that makes him necessary to the country's functioning. Without a leader, North Korean forces would face a severe blow to their morale as well as their command structure, but it wouldn't end the fight. "Technically North Korea is under the rule of their 'forever leader' Kim Il Sung," said Tack, adding that "a decapitation strike wouldn’t guarantee that the structures below him wouldn’t fall apart, but it would be a damn tricky problem for those that remain after him." Unfortunately, North Koreans aren't shy about putting their leader first, and at the first indication of an attack, Kim would likely be tucked away in a bunker deep underground while his countrymen bore the brunt of the attack. 

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: Democracy is a terrible bad form of government. However most of the other forms are worse. I would rather have a republic that lives under a sane set of laws. end quote

I do not fall for the libertarian conceit that every government is bad. When our deliberately created government was conceived it was a time of enlightenment, reason, and self-determination. Americans lived in a new land, on the edge of an ever expanding frontier, and was fed up with the old monarchy and legislature system that had been around for hundreds of years since 1215 when the, “great charter of the liberties” or the Magna Charta was ratified. Our country was conceived to protect the rights of its citizens.

How would anyone create “. . . a republic that lives under a sane set of laws”? Wolf has postulated a city/state, but I am thinking of a larger, consolidated geographic area. Would you start from scratch, or use other republics as a template?

This is an aside, but relevant to me locally. Poultry houses, farming, the beach with its tourists, and Wallops Island are Delmarva’s chief industries. They are proposing a regulation to require poultry houses be set back 200 feet from roads and other structures (it is now a mere 25 feet) and exhaust fans would need to be vented 500 feet from residences. This would only apply to new chicken houses, so the new regulations would not affect what is already there which is the concept of “coming to the nuisance.”

Peter

[Peter]

I had previously written on another thread: Coming to the Nuisance doctrine provides a partial remedy to the problem I call the “Right to a View.” An Objectivist might immediately respond, based on Rand’s writings that “There is no such thing as a "Right to a View." Oh, yes there is, just as there is a traditional right to water, sunlight and unpolluted air. If I buy the land with a view, I will want to keep the view. Laws like *Coming to the Nuisance* are tried and true prescriptions for living on earth in a community.

Here is a quote about "Coming to the Nuisance," discussed in, “The Antidote for Zoning: Bringing Objectivity to the Land Development Process” by David Wilens: "Coming to the Nuisance" means exactly what it sounds like: if a property owner is using his property so as to cause a nuisance to another property owner, then the property owner who was the earlier to start his particular use is the one who has the right to continue his use . . . Because the right to property means the right to use it indefinitely, it follows that, once a property owner has started using his property in a particular fashion, he has the right to stop others from interfering with that particular use. This is the rationale behind the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine's requirement that, when uses of two properties conflict with each other, the use which has priority is the one started first, and the owner has the right to stop others from interfering with this prior use (the "first in time, first in right" rule). Since the right to property necessarily implies the right to use it indefinitely, and since the right to use property indefinitely implies the first in time, first in right rule, it follows that respecting property rights ultimately means respecting the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine too. The two are inseparable. end quote

Back to me. Imagine that you find land with that view you desire, pay the large amount of money for it, and your property extends to the water. This ensures that no one can build between you and your view. By common Law no one is allowed to float a building on the water that blocks your view. There is NO problem because you've ensured of your view by owning the land to the water. However, by possessing this "Right to a View," aren’t you blocking the view of everyone who lives in back of you, further away from the water? Yes you are, but by precedent this is fine. The right to a view does not extend indefinitely back from the view. By tradition it extends just to those properties closest to the view, be it The Chesapeake Bay, or The Rocky Mountains.

The view is better near the water. You will have paid more to be near the water. You expect to see the great view if that’s what you bought. If you did not buy waterfront property you expect to see the back of a house. These principles go back to olde England.

If anyone has seen the Sissy Spacek film, “Violets are Blue” there is a beautiful nighttime scene from a boat on the bay with the carousel going round in the background, and you can hear crowds of ecstatic children laughing. Suppose you say to yourself, I would like that property. You find the land with that view, spend the exorbitant amount of money for it, and your property extends to the water, ensuring that no one can build between you and your view.

An Objectivist might object that if there's a view that you value, but you are NOT on the water, then you have the right to get a contractual agreement with other property owners to insure your view, or buy the land that may prove to create an obstacle.  I agree, but we need to think beyond our catechism of stock Randian phrases, and the idea that you need a contract with everyone who borders your property to live well, because you don’t. A right to a view is an age old tradition for those living near the water, and this principle should be kept.

Another example? You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within one un-built upon lot from the water, and you built your home. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine ensures that no one can build so high as to get between you and your view, BECAUSE YOU BUILT FIRST. Is this infringing on the other property owner’s rights? No.

Scene three: You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within ONE BUILDING LOT from the water, and you built your home. However, there is already another one story home in front of you. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine does not protect you, so you build a two story home, putting your living room with its better view on the second floor.

Do you now have any objective, legal right under the “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine to keep the closer to the bay homeowner from building a three story home there, that blocks your second story view at a later time?  Yes you do! Is that objectively infringing on his property rights? NO. There are more scenarios but I will stop there. This is the sort of dilemma that flat-out statements of “rights” do not cover. Just as non violent *coercion* was added to the *Non Initiation Of Force* concept by Ayn Rand, the right to property also needs rational clarification. “There oughta be a law,” and there is. I found it in Common Law.

[Peter]

Trump seems to have a “grand plan.” He just dropped a 21,000 pound bomb on the Taliban in Afghanistan. That is one of the largest, non nuclear, military weapons ever used. It was dropped on a “tunnel.” And it does look like a nuclear blast, so we have someone recording the incident from a few miles away.  

Once again, he avoided civilian and American casualties. Sean Spicer will be speaking soon. I guarantee the Afghanis are OK with it. Our military is OK with it. I am AOK with it. I just heard the weapon has a one mile blast area and it was meant to send a message to our friendly Afghan allies, and to our enemies everywhere. It could be heard, far, far, away. 

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Trump seems to have a “grand plan.”

Peter,

He sure does.

During the campaign he said he was going to have the US military bomb the shit out of ISIS and wipe them off the face of the earth. I think those are exact quotes, too. If not, they are close enough.

Oddly enough, some Trump supporters seem to be shocked he's starting to do it.

Not me. I believed him at the time.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: Oddly enough, some Trump supporters seem to be shocked he's starting to do it. Not me. I believed him at the time. end quote

I think along similar lines. Either of us, could devise a legitimate explanation for his seemingly random acts of “extended” self-defense or retaliation. America has the means. We have the will. Those participating in the strikes and the military in general are cheering.

A Green beret was killed last week, surveilling that Afghan tunnel system, but this is more than a direct retaliation. The “moab” bomb used is a gravity bomb but it is also released by a parachute system and it contains some guidance from fins and an electronic link to the plane. Imagine that one mile blast area~!*&^%$ OK. which asshole is next?

Peter           

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For those who are confused about Trump, here is one more analysis by Rush Limbaugh (one of his best so far).

Explaining Donald Trump (Yet Again)

And I'll throw this in for good measure.

Something’s Not Right About This Bannon Business

All you have to do is accept the fact that the mainstream media does not report anything accurately anymore--that it is on a propaganda quest of its own--and 50% of confusion would be cleared up about President Trump.

Then, if you accept--for process and decision making--he applies business principles to his stated goal of making America great again (basic free market principles at that--ones he has used for decades), as opposed to political ideology from donor-funded think tanks and sundry philosophers, the other 50% is very easy to understand.

And once you do understand, you can't help but think: Man, is the presidency in good hands.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For those who are confused about Trump, here is one more analysis by Rush Limbaugh (one of his best so far).

Explaining Donald Trump (Yet Again)

And I'll throw this in for good measure.

Something’s Not Right About This Bannon Business

All you have to do is accept the fact that the mainstream media does not report anything accurately anymore--that it is on a propaganda quest of its own--and 50% of confusion would be cleared up about President Trump.

Then, if you accept--for process and decision making--he applies business principles to his stated goal of making America great again (basic free market principles at that--ones he has used for decades), as opposed to political ideology from donor-funded think tanks and sundry philosophers, the other 50% is very easy to understand.

And once you do understand, you can't help but think: Man, is the presidency in good hands.

Michael

I am happy to see the presidency is not in Hillary's hands.