China wasn't part of the TPP and was glad it didn't get signed.

Yeah, I certainly can't claim to understand the details of the TPP, and I think there were a fair number of common folk who identify on the far side of either spectrum that made up their minds after the fact, and end up arguing against their own politics.

Personally, the idea of disconnecting from the model of cheap foreign manufacturing appeals to me on just a basic level, and I remember similar alarmist rhetoric in the '80s when the Japanese were inevitably going to buy us all out of our own country, but most of all I appreciate that I don't have even the slightest inking of what I'm talking about when it comes to global trade.

In fairness, with all the shit that has gone on, the campaign does feel like 10 years ago at this point.

Is it time to start talking about an age maximum to be president?

When the constitution was written, it looks like the average life expectancy was somewhere in the range of 35-50 yrs. Which makes sense considering the general conditions/medical knowledge available at the time.

Now, with advances in medicine, life expectancy in the US is somewhere in the range of 70-80 yrs. We have an age minimum to make sure the president has some level of maturity and experience to be able to execute the duties of the office competently. In the 1780's, there really wasn't a need to put a cap on age, as many people weren't living long enough for it to really be an issue. But now, alzheimers/dementia are becoming an issue. I see it in my own family as someone who was incredibly intelligent just five years ago at the age of 72, is now incapable of being left alone without risk of severely injuring himself because he has regressed so much. It is both heartbreaking and shocking.

Maybe the current president doesn't have those issues, maybe he just has the attention span of a gnat. Perhaps he rose to success on the back of Daddy's money, the ability to bully his way through life and rely on deep pockets to lawyer his way out of any situation either by winning or just draining the other guy's bank account to where they just gave up. But, he's the oldest president by age at time of inauguration. In fact, 3 of the 5 oldest at inauguration have been within the last 40 years. Bush1 64 yrs/ 6 months, Reagan 69 yrs / 11 months and Trump 70 yrs / 7 months. The other two on the list - William Henry Harrison and James Buchanan were president in the 40's and 50's. The 1840's and 1850s. The 6th oldest? Zachary Taylor - president in 1849. Eisehhower was 62 when inaugurated in 1953. Truman and Ford were 60 & 61 respectively, Nixon was 56, LBJ was 55, Bush2 54, Carter was 52, FDR 51, Obama 47, Clinton 45, Kennedy 43.

At this point Trump is who is he is, he's not going to change and isn't likely to become more stable with time. But it isn't just him, I'm not sure how fit Clinton is either, I think she's got her own issues as well. Was Reagan really fully aware of what was going on in his second term (or first for that matter)?

Anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to some age cap that says something like you can't be president if your term extends into/beyond the age of 70.

I agree with you here Pbot. Thought this when McCain was running for President, and seeing Senators/Reps being wheeled in on wheelchairs for votes. My Dad was a very active "farmer's boy" right until he was diagnosed with at the time we thought was Parkinson's Disease. How many members of Congress/those running for President are checked on a yearly basis for diseases like this that can do such horrible things to the mind and body? How many of us on the board here in our 50's/60's are at 100% physically/mentally? I'm certainly not.

Trump and Clinton and Sanders were of concern to me because of their age. Trump seems very stressed out already not a year into his presidency-what effect is that going to have on his health going forward? So I certainly think some sort of maximum age limit should be added to the Constitution.

Not joking at all here. My mother died of dementia a few years back after 6 years or so of mental decline/personality change/increasing belligerence. I would not be surprised at all if some day we find out that Trump was in the throws of dementia throughout his Presidency. He seems to have many of the symptoms.

70 year olds fade fast. It's also why i was less than thrilled with Hillary or especially Bernie as the other options this cycle. Something like 1 in 3 70+ year olds begin to experience dementia and it only increases as they age. With the presidency realistically aging someone at a rate far more than normal, it's absolutely nuts to put such aged people in that office IMO. And that's before you even do the calculus of how nuts Trump is in the first place.

The difference is that Reagan had a personality which allowed him to look and act sensibly even when he declined somewhat, Trump is so arrogant he's potentially dangerous in my opinion and he doesn't recognize his lack of restraint or judgement at all.

+1

Hmmm? Trump was against it during the campaign, so the fact that he pulled out was no surprise at all. Hillary and Bernie were on opposite sides of the TPP agreement and it was a big issue in the primary, which is why you see the far left still opposed to it but the moderate left in here defending it.

Bye-bye Bannon.

If going solely by his white nationalist support, this makes absolutely no sense. But maybe he thinks he doesn't really need him anymore to keep that support.

Either way, he can go back to his real job as a KD Lang covers singer.

Bannon out as White House chief strategist - POLITICO

Best move he's made yet

If this is true...wow. Imagine a public Bannon-Trump war.

Hearing from a source that Bannon is going ugly. Stay tuned...

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 18, 2017

Source close to Bannon confirms Bannon expected to return to Breitbart after a WH exit

— Gabriel Sherman (@gabrielsherman) August 18, 2017

Shit show just racketed up another 10 rungs.

Credit where it is due, getting rid of a white supremacist is a good thing

Steve Bannon just told me he resigned from the White House two weeks ago @POTUS #Bannon

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) August 18, 2017

Does Sara A. Carter work over at SportsDigs?

Where have those sources been for Bannon's life?

Indeed. Scary thing is his thoughts on North Korea were of a sane man while the guy in charge is a raging lunatic.

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

Huh? Oooh, conspiracy... Charlottesville was an inside job.

You've channelled your "inner Steve Bannon" for that Easy Mac :)

Wait, does that mean I'll learn how to... you know...

You'll make it look Easy.

So does anyone else see the season finale as Pence being sworn in as 46?

:lol:

A picture from my childhood:

Yes actually:

'Art Of The Deal' Co-Author Tony Schwartz Predicts Trump's About To Resign | HuffPost

Unless impeachment is imminent I think he'd need a way to resign while showing he accomplished everything he set out to do. He could sell a lot of boxes being checked off to his base (and obstruction from house and/or senate preventing more wins) but the big one he's still missing is the wall.

He doesn't have to do anything. If he resigns, it'll be because the swamp wouldn't let him do the things he wanted to do. It's everyone else's fault, not his.

His base will lap it up.

He has degraded the office to a point that we'll have more "outsiders" try to run for office and create more disillusionment with government.

Trump will make more money has a martyr to his base, he'll be holding rallies until his dying day and turning a profit. He'll armchair quarterback through twitter all leaders even after being out of office and he'll be validated because he held the highest office in the nation.

The biggest hope is that he is found guilty of violating a law, that will be a means of at least discrediting his lobs. That being said, he'll pull a Nixon and resign before that occurs (and Pence will pardon the lot of them). His base will love him regardless and in the years after his death he'll be deified. (Unlike Nixon, Trump will always have social media as a means of distorting the truth and rallying his base).

The good news if there is any, is that if the democrats have any sense of competence (I hear John snickering), they could at least in the future get a small majority (doubtful)...

The other good news is that more morons (like Kid Rock) run for office, and will ultimately be contained due their sheer incompetence (much like Trump).

The bad news is that Trump may be the death knell for America, or the start of a long quagmire for a number of years until hopefully someone can bring professionalism back to government.

60% of Trump's voters are still with him, he has yet to fulfill even the basest of promises (Supreme Court was a gimme). They simply are too fanatical and too resistant to the idea that compromise is the only way to progress. Their leader had Congress, the Courts and the zealous backing and they couldn't close the deal, they went towards the ethno-state policy rather than tax reform (and tax cuts for the ultra rich) and now it's all falling apart.

Trump may be a lame duck president in his first year, that's an amazing level of incompetence.

As we fall more into a morass of the opioid addiction, China asserting all trade dominance, automation and the death of the middle class, race issues, women rights issue and the specter of Russia's resurgence plus North Korea/Iran's nuclear goals, I foresee a very neutered US. I would hope that due to our immense natural resources, innovation and immigration (we're the greatest nation in the world right?!?), we could stave off decline, but it seems more and more likely we will watch from the sidelines.

Meanwhile, I sit reading the news with :popcorn:

I think it's more likely Trump would just disengage and take more vacations than it is that he'll actually resign. I've been reading how his "presidency is effectively over" for his entire presidency. It's not over as long as he has the title and the office. Why leave?

I have some hope that the Russia investigation will lead to an impeachment that could save us all.

But I'm not sure Mueller could or would offer immunity in exchange for resignation. That doesn't pass the ethical smell test and it feels awfully political for a criminal investigation. I haven't read a definitive answer I trust on that yet.

IMO wishful thinking he'll resign.

I don't see him quitting unless Mueller finds something really incriminating. I don't really think Trump conspired with the Russians, lower level contacts yes but himself conspiring - no.

I can't see him resigning even if impeachment is started because he'll fight it and there is 35-42% that will stand by him.

And if it comes close to him being forced out, I still think there is a high likelyhood he will escalate and/or start a war with someone (e.g. NK, Venezuela) to distract.

I expect it'll be found he protected people who he know conspired - this is in itself conspiracy even if it can't be proved he asked them to conspire.

(heck he's already admitted writing a cover store for his son meeting the Russians so this isn't much of a stretch imho)

Trump fired the FBI Director because he was investigating the Russia connections and then he told the Russian Foreign Minister that he had more room to negotiate with the Russians.

Trump thinks he's playing Survivor... and WINNING!

Pence seems to be playing the game pretty well too.

He probably only leaves office in a casket or in cuffs.

Funny how its still wildly effective to drop a story on Friday afternoon in 2017. I mean may as well just lead with that on a Monday and cause some sort of crisis later in the week to bury it.

What's the military play in Venezuela?

.02

Trump will fill cabinet with boring and effective people.
Economy will continue to grow.
Democratics will keep attacking yet offer no vision.
Most importantly, FBI will not find enough to hurt trump. He will be vindicated from witch hunt.

Result:
Re election more possible than impeachment, resignation

My prediction is that before the four years are over, Bannon will be back.

Foreign policy impact with Bannon gone. Wonder what Trump & crew will come up with the Camp David meeting -- pullout, decrease, increase, status quo in Afghanistan?

Hawks soaring after Bannon's departure - POLITICO

Don't know but if Trump needs a major distraction (and without nukes) he'll come up with something.

(Possibly humanitarian?)

Didn't think about that but I think there's a fair chance you could be right.

But I think there is also a fair chance that Bannon will disagree with Trump's policies going forward and make enough trouble where they stay estranged.

I'm rooting for the latter, I want to know what dirty laundry Bannon has on Trump.

Regardless of how I feel about Trump now I'm still rooting for him to change/ succeed because it'll be good for the country.

If #1 and #2 is true, he may well deserve to be re-elected (I would add "listen to the boring and effective people"). However, I think the odds on #1 happening is pretty low.

True believers, some of you.

I'm not a Trump or Obama supporter at all but both him and Obama have at least not impacted my retirement like previous presidents. I realize they have very little impact on the economy good or bad but it's still good to see a great return on my investments with all the other shit going on.

I also do honestly ask my ultra liberal buddy at work what exactly is the real impact on his life of this Trump presidency that he carries on about day after day? Charlotesville? Sort of like blaming Obama for the Orlando night club shooting, Ferguson, or Sandy Hook. Obama handled the situations better but really all these events are out of their control. It's also funny that these groups are wanting these statues down right at the beginning of Trump's presidency. Were the statues just built or is maybe the whole thing kind of political? Nah!

Sure I will will get blasted as a Trump supporter for not following the board's policy of outrage about everything and I would love a Clinton presidency right now as much anyone. I just am aware that a Pence presidency will actually have policy impact on my life and a Trump presidency is just a circus that doesn't really accomplish anything.

That's similar to where I'm at. The last time a Clinton was president it could easily be argued he did more harm than good towards liberal socioeconomic ideals, and to some extent I've convinced myself the most ineffective president (from either side) is the one that most represents my views...and Trump keeps getting more ineffective with every day. That said, the fact that he'll always have his finger on the button of our nuclear arsenal, and military might, makes it impossible for me to dismiss the rest of his absolutely vile bullshit, and/or a fundamental fear for my existence, even on the most selfish & personal level.

I've never been a fan of knee jerk reactions on the left or right. I think it just makes everyone look stupid in the end. I speak out about bullies, abuse, actions taken without thinking about the consequences and general ignorance for facts. Most important is knowing when to admit when you're wrong and correct your world view to suit.

I wonder what the country would be like if HRC had won.

I bet all those confederate statues would still be standing. And not even a blip in the radar.

The economy would probably be growing.

How would she handle North Korea? Better or worse? I imagine worse. But maybe not. Maybe she would have more juice to get China on board.

The big negative from both the Obama presidency and this one, is how divided the country has become. But maybe it is just the times and not the presidents. but I think the presidents have something to do with it.

Great sentiment. But how do you define right and wrong? That is a subjective thing.

Maybe the problem is we are trying to be objective in a subjective world.

I think the division is more of an inevitability because of the shifting nature of the US political landscape. The country is slowly shifting more to moderate left from the moderate right position it's held for an eternity. With that you have young people that would have struggled to have a voice in previous generations that now have the internet as an outlet. More voices from more generations during changing times. That's a recipe for division.

I don't believe any moderate left or right president is going to make much of a difference with North Korea. Even Trump, with all of his threats, hasn't changed a thing with them. Every threat from the country is a bluff. We know that, they know that, the world knows that. We can ignore them and continue sanctioning them or threaten them and continue sanctioning them. The only thing that's going to change that is if we attack them or they feel backed so far into a corner that they feel it's necessary to attack.

My personal problem with threatening North Korea with nukes or military action is that our threats are just as empty as theirs are and it there's a chance it emboldens them when they realize that.

A coupe of questions.

1. tarcone, what did Obama do that divided the country? Was it his speeches and policies? To me, the division wasn't getting worse until 2-3 years ago. Otherwise, that part was getting slowly better. It's much better than it was 10-15 years ago.

2. What is causing the big movement to remove the statues? There are items all over the country and all over the world that represent something extremely negative to some sizable group of people. Does that mean we need to destroy all of those items? Or are we only destroying a subset based on the attitude of the time? I must admit, I didn't know we had so many monuments erected to the confederacy...and don't care.

Over the past 6-12 months, the country, or at least the small part of the country that I read about on social media and the news, has amplified the extremes. While most of the noise comes from the extremes, most of the people seem to live in the middle. If the middle can come together, be civil and have constructive discussions, and denounce both extremes, maybe we can get things back on track.

His policies. His membership in his church (even though he denounced the pastor and got out). His perceived birthplace and religion.

But the division isnt just in the public, it is in the legislative branch as well. Will that arm of the government do anything? Can they? Will they? I dont know. It sure doesnt seem like it.

Seems like the Judicial branch has made more laws lately than the legislative branch. I know Im exaggerating. But it feels like it.

The division in the legislative branch isn't anything new. The reason it seems magnified right now is the focus on passing things that dems and conservatives fundamentally disagree on.

So a guy who wasn't born in Kenya and who wasn't a Muslim should be blamed because people thought he was?

I hate, hate playing the race card. But let's call it for what it is - you are saying the president shouldn't be black at this point.

Whoa there skippy. You are putting words in my mouth. I said perceived. And I dont believe that. Never did.

And there isnt blame. I think it is what it is. When people have a perception about something, it becomes their reality.

I never said a President shouldnt be black.

Democrats suck at local politics lately and thats allowed fringe and rural positions to have far more bearing on policy than they merit. Congressional districts are so poorly drawn that 50/50 states end up at 66/33 R to D in the US house. Which causes even greater division than there should be.

The policies part, I get. Makes sense. The church aspect does as well, but he distanced himself from that very early and doesn't seem like a part of Obama that would divide the nation to the current perceived level.

And isn't his religion some denomination of Christian? Isn't his name more in line with his father's heritage?

Can you expand a bit on the birthplace portion? The country is divided because his father was Kenyan so part of the country feels he is Kenyan and not American, even though he was born in Hawaii? If Obama wasn't born here, that would've been vetted out when he was running for office. Or, do people feel there's a conspiracy and a cover up to hide his origin of birth? (Yes, I now that's the case, but is that really the reason the country is divided?)

So is the Bannon firing not really a "firing" but more of a way for someone who is "no longer on the team" to voice opinions for Trump without the political backlash?

I mean all Trump has to do is say "I fired they guy, don't associate what Brietbart/Bannon has to say with me." The "fake news" will undoubtedly try to correlate what Bannon spews from the outside as what is going on inside the WH. The loyal base will eat it up and the cycle continues.

Perceived birthplace and religion. There are people in this country that cling to the belief that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. Sadly, while it's not anything close to a majority it is a sizable number of people.

Bannon was fired because Kelly seems determined to get the nutjobs out of Trump's ear.

What I expect you'll see from Bannon is praise for Trump when he can, but mostly attacks on Kelly, Kushner, Ryan, ect. They'll be blamed for Trump changing stances or backing off his pledges.

Yeah, I'm a NW yankee, so the civil war and the confederacy have literally no cultural influence on me, and I've been mildly surprised to see how many confederate monuments exist, let alone get removed. I don't know if I'd say I care, but I do think there's an interesting discussion in there somewhere about why these monuments are suddenly being removed. Particularly at this point in time and at locations where you'd think that confederate sentiment is actually at it's highest, and at a rate that makes me question why nobody had noticed/remarked that there were so many of them in the previous 100 years (which I'm sure millions of folks did, but it didn't trickled up to me in the NW much).

tarcone, I am usually of the exact opposite opinion on every political subject I've ever payed attention to, sometimes to the extent that I get angry and/or offended, but I can also honestly say that I think you consider other folks' thoughts and are open to changing your mind more than anybody I've ever seen on the internet, which deserves some recognition.

This.

Thanks.
As I mature I find myself more open to others ideas and values. And this is a board that is full of very intelligent individuals.
I like the discussions here. 99% of them are very thought provoking.

Honestly, I didn't think people were still clinging to that theory so vehemently. If I believed that, that would make me think Obama's presidency was invalid and stolen by the Dems, and would piss me off. With no proof that it's true after 9-10 years, though, I can't say I would continue to believe it.

I have had the discussion every now and then with my wife (and now son) for a few years now. She's from the South, says it's "Heritage," and I question her to think about why that particular part of her family background is so important to connect with. Being proud to be from the South, fine. But why does that have to be specifically represented by the Confederacy?

I mean, from MY standpoint, having come from a family of immigrants (not sure I had any family here before the 1900s) from a northern city, I just don't get it. The Confederacy was the losing side of a seditious war. One that was primarily over slavery (sorry, states rights is revisionist bullshit IMO). How in the hell is this a source of pride? Oh, right - it was white pride. Got it.

"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated," Lee wrote in December 1866 about another proposed Confederate monument, "my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."

Interesting stuff about Lee. He was truly a great american. Best General the Union had. But had allegiance to Virginia, so joined Confederacy.

Some his quotes are outstanding. And he realized that after the war, reconciliation and acceptance was the raod to follow.

I can understand how over the years those confederate monuments could be culturally assimilated to represent traditional Southern values like gun ownership, rebellion, and religion without necessarily assuming the weight of the war or it's causes. But yeah, at some point you should face & wrestle with the fact that it's largely/only other white folk sharing that simplification.

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee - The Atlantic


Yeah, great guy.

Never mind.


Thanks for posting the article Cuervo. Sure changed my thoughts.

Here's a rebuttal to that piece, fwiw:

Was Robert E. Lee A Hero or A Villain? | National Review

But...Atlantic vs National Review, that's to be expected.

Maybe this is more balanced? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...-lee-85017563/

There's probably a million articles about Lee. I'm not sure he's as saintly as some make out. Some say that about Lincoln too, of course.

Its hard to know. We are relying on people with their own biases tapping into our biases and hoping what ever they throw at the wall sticks.

Some of those quotes by Lee are great. But it sounds like he really felt that Blacks were not capable of doing anything without whites showing them the way.

He seems to have many layers as many important historical figures do.

That's true of many figures of the era. "Social justice" is a pretty recent concept, really. Those in the North who supported abolition weren't necessarily on board with 'make blacks equal to whites.' They just saw slavery and slaveowning as an injustice.

I mean, Lincoln wanted slavery gone - that whole "house divided" thing - but he wasn't super-keen on the idea of the freedmen hanging around. He supported the American Colonization Society's goal of repatriating freed blacks to Liberia. And even he wrote that he was completely willing to preserve slavery, despite his personal predilections, if it would preserve the Union.

That's the dirty little secret about the "Party of Lincoln." It's an idealized view of the Republican Party of the late 19th century, and the reality and the idealization don't really match up. Yes, Republicans freed the slaves with the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, but the end of slavery wasn't the casus belli. Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves; he sought to restore the Union. He didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation to change the moral authority of the war; he issued it as a threat to the South that their great fear on secession - the eradication of slavery in the Confederate states - would become a reality if they didn't cease their rebellion within three months. The requirement that the South adopt those Amendments as a prerequisite to regaining full statehood following the war was the stick behind the threat that document asserted.

Even after the war ended, the Republicans sold out the cause of black political freedom for political advantage - they traded the end of Reconstruction (and the concomitant disenfranchisement of black politics in the South for almost a century) in exchange for Southern Democrats agreeing to drop their contest of Hayes' election in 1876.

The modern GOP is less enthused about bringing up that bit when they remind folks that it was Republicans who freed the slaves, naturally.

TL;DR - freedom and equality were separate concepts even for many abolitionists of the era. It's not at all surprising that somebody might advocate the end of slavery and still hold views in line with the "White Man's Burden" Kipling would write about a generation later.

That's no less true of Lee than of Lincoln than of any other 19th century American politician.

Well articulated.

Yes. Very well written. Thanks.

While this is very well-written and Lincoln isn't quite the absolute saint most make him out to be, his political actions do not necessarily reflect his actual beliefs. He understood the political machine better than nearly anyone of his time, and used it brilliantly - the underlying theme is that he would go to any lengths to save the Union. The American Colonization Society thing (his support of repatriating freed blacks to Liberia) was a great example of this. His public support of it was a huge political mis-step that opened his eyes - while he may have initially supported it, his writings after the public reaction to his initial support heavily indicate that he realized that he misread the room with regard to the opinion of actual black people, and had him rethinking his beliefs on the issue. His relationship to Frederick Douglass in particular helped to shape his beliefs. Many of his private papers indicate that he himself was occasionally frustrated that the political climate necessitated aiming for a lesser goal because of how it would be received/reacted to. A strong example was how reluctant/cautious Lincoln had to be with that 'stick' of his because he could not afford to scare off the border states into seceding with the south.

If anyone is at all interested in the time period, or Lincoln in general, A Team of Rivals is an incredible read.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I recently read The U.S. Civil War by Bruce Catton. But that is more about the war itself. But it does touch on the politics.
Lincoln should be considered the greatest President we have had. The political mine field he had to traverse was incredible.
He was in a lose-lose position and he managed to get the Union to come out together. And, honestly, in a win position.

Seeing all this talk about history during the time of Lincoln (especially the American Colonization Society) makes this African-American/African history teacher proud :)

Lot of speculation that two collisions of the same class ship within two months may not be accidental. The possibility of GPS spoofing is being thrown out.

As in ships masking their GPS signal to show up in a place they are not?

That or the navy just spent billions of dollars on shit that doesn't work very well

The first collision ended with the captain and several crew being fired for negligence so I doubt that is the case ... that and y'know ships down move all that fast so regardless of whether that occurred old fashioned eyes and radar should be able to cope.

GPS is apparently vulnerable to outside signals confusing the satellites so that ships are told incorrect locations. Apparently there was a recent incident where numerous ships in the Black Sea all had their GPS spoofed simultaneously.

Maybe thats why my GPS takes me on back roads instead of interstates. Damn spoofing. :)

If reports are accurate Trump is going to call for 4000 more troops for Afghanistan. That doesn't seem like a number high enough to make a difference.

I don't understand why he is having a major national television address on this? Am I the only one?

Gotta look like the Presidump.

Because Paul Ryan was scheduled to have a town hall on CNN at 9.

Seriously, that's probably the reason.

Hopefully to explain why

IIRC, he was against this type of action. If that is the case, there probably needs to be an explanation for the reversal.

I think Obama would have done the same. Explaining why he's sending more American troops over to possibly die is probably a good, more Presidential, move on his part.

I agree. Will never have an issue with a President addressing the public on changes to our military stance.

But like usual, there is a tweet for this one too. I swear he does the opposite of everything he has ever said.

Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2013

I'd be interested in any book suggestions too. Especially ones in audio format (I've got an hour each morning when I workout to listen to stuff). Or even podcasts. I feel like I've learned a ton on WW1 from Hardcore History. Would be cool if something like that existed for the Civil War.

I'm torn on the statues. For the most part I just didn't care. It was just a statue of an American figure. Sure he can be classified as a traitor but he was still a figure in American history. But I was also white and I would definitely feel differently if I was a black man growing up in a city that honored someone who fought so passionately to maintain the enslavement of my ancestors.

My feelings on the topic did change a few month months back when I read a speech by the Mayor of New Orleans (who is white) about the removal of Confederate monuments). It had talked about it from a perspective I had never thought of and I think is worthy of a read for anyone in the thread.

Transcript of New Orleans Mayor Landrieu’s address on Confederate monuments | The Pulse

1776 and A Team of Rivals are hands down the best American History books I have ever read. 1776 is a little lighter on facts/sources/analysis than I'd like, so it reads a little more like a story than a historical account, but it is excellent nonetheless.

I've read 1776. McCullough is one of my favorites.

I will suggest The US Civil War by Catton. I mentioned it earlier. Great read. Not sure if on audio. But I really enjoyed it. The Civil War is not one of my most favored time periods, but I really got into this book.

Doesn't seem that much to me either.

There are alot of military minds at Camp David so they should know what they are doing, have access to all the intel/projections etc., and a president that is very pro military. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt with whatever they come up with.

There was also talk about this being a regional strategy (not just Afghanistan) so will be interesting to see what is being proposed.

It's on audio. Will definitely listen. I should probably watch the old Ed Burns documentary on it too. Been a long time and it's on Netflix.