The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    As you confirm: whoever they are, they are - as I pointed out - ignorant and unseeing, especially of fascism (the New Deal was American fascism? Please.)
    Of course you don't. You don't see them even when they are paraded in front of you. I have pointed that out to you many times. You are ignorant of domestic US politics, and a gullible victim of US professional media manipulations (the bothsides schtick has been the US rightwing corporate authoritarian's main line for "respectable" media since W screwed the pooch - you parrot it perfectly).
    Going by your description, they do not see fascism coming. They think they are safe from Trump's destruction of sound governance. They think Trump will break the bad stuff. They prefer Trump to competent US governance.
    As you explained, you have bought into the rightwing US scaremonger's schtick that the Soviet era was a "bipolar" time. That was a story invented to sell big peacetime military budgets and various foreign wars to easily manipulated Americans.
    In addition, you continue to avoid the obvious and dominant contribution of Reagan and Bush to what you have agreed was a unipolar mess following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    So you don't actually care about "unipolar" - you care about whatever the US Republican propaganda feed has emphasized recently.
    - - -
    The point being that it is inaccurate and quite silly agitprop vocabulary, and so it clearly marks the source of your opinions. Goofy errors like that - consistent and long term - cannot plausibly be relegated to coincidence.
    You are wrong about the averages. That is likely because you don't know anything about the details, which is what the averages would be averages of.
    That doesn't exist, in the first place.
    And you're probably wrong, in the second - the effects of AGW on rainfall patterns are almost certain to be detrimental to most agriculture in the near and mid term (next few hundred years). Possibly disastrous.
    The "climate" is unlikely to become more humid on average. That's not a prediction of AGW.
    But they are not implausible. And I have posted a great deal of justification, links, etc, in the past - including on these very matters. You learned nothing.

    Look, if you have made one thing clear on this forum it is this: You will learn nothing that conflicts with US wingnut propaganda feeds. The media feeds from the US corporate think tanks and wingnut welfare havens are holy writ to you.

    But that does not explain your posting of them here. The question is this: Why do you make these empty Republican Party Line claims of yours, without justification, that you know - as you have explicitly stated - are based in ignorance?

    Right down to characterizing the various investigations, lawsuits, and oppositions to Trump as a "manhunt".
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    All three led their country into a war, and in all three cases against a quite strong opposition of other political forces against this war. So, in my opinion, it fits.
    Cheap trick. Learn to read, and find the word "economic" in the text you have quoted. Not American fascism, but American corporatism, which is the economic system of fascism.
    And another cheap trick. I don't see an essential difference in foreign policy (the context was counting wars, remember?), thus, domestic US policies are irrelevant. And, as usual, claims claims claims without any evidence.
    No. They have not seen sound governance already before Trump. So, nothing to be destructed by Trump which would be worth named "sound governance".
    So what? If even this is a "rightwing US scaremonger's schtick", that means that the common generally accepted name for this time is a "rightwing US scaremonger's schtick". And it follows that it is reasonable to use "rightwing US scaremonger's schtick"s.
    Of course, once there are no reasonable arguments against it, I continue to do what I did. Your renaming the bipolar world into unipolar I have not classified as a reasonable argument.
    I do not care about the Orwellian language you propose, I use the established names. If the world has accepted the names proposed by those evil rightwing nuts, so what? I do not play word games, I use words to denote things and the straightforward way to do this is to use established names for this.
    Which is all you care about. To start a cheap ad hominem against that claimed source, at best. Without a doubt, I use sources outside your bubble.
    It remains to justify this claim with at least something weakly remembering an argument or evidence.

    A trivial counterargument I have already rejected - if there is too much rain for certain crops, they would have to be replaced by others which need more rain. This needs some time, but the count is in years, not hundreds of years. There is the claim that volatility will be larger. This would cause some problems, but there are age-old known ways to handle this (dams, reservoirs).
    If there will be no more H2O in the air, there will be no influence of H2O on global warming, and most of the amplification vanishes into thin air.
    This possibly justifies to make them once. Once I react, and deny them, "plausible" is no longer enough, you have to prove repetitions of such claims with evidence. If you don't, but repeat the claims, however plausible they may be, what you do is named defamation campaign.
    Whenever you have given something, I have given a reaction. If not, I have accepted it and (if it was somehow relevant) learned something. But most of your justifications appeared insufficient, so there was no base for learning something.
    Incorrect question, because I don't. Feel free to prove that I do, quoting (with link) a claim and then quoting (with link) an explicit statement that I'm ignorant about this particular claim.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Are we experiencing an existential threat at our border with Mexico?
    Or are we experiencing an existential threat from Mr. Trump?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The "wars" were not near equivalent. Neither was the opposition. You are confusing different political forces. And you keep omitting two of the five Presidents responsible for modern US war in the Middle East, including the one that brought the US Army in force and set this mess up.
    I quoted you ascribing one of the more flamboyantly idiotic Republican wingnut memes (that the New Deal was fascist) to your Russian pals. I believe you - I do believe you are not alone in your gullibility and vulnerability to US professional propaganda operations.
    It's enough to contradict your evidence-free and unjustified claim of "implausible". And I don't have to do anything to bail your ignorant ass out of your latest absurdity. That's your job.
    You do. I proved it, long ago, by pointing to common errors of fact and common inaccurate vocabulary and common invalid argument, which proves a common source. That is information for you. Take it or leave it.
    There will be more water in the air, according to the AGW researchers. That's where the warming amplification comes from. There probably will not be higher humidity, at least not on schedule in the lower atmosphere where agriculture happens - extended droughts are more likely. You were babbling about "humidity", remember.
    You made that obvious, simple, basic error because you are completely ignorant in this matter. You are posting propaganda memes from sources familiar to any American, that were designed to take advantage of ignorant Americans.
    That's all fantasy. You. Need. Information.

    And you need to get it yourself. There is no point in my trying to get you to pay attention to stuff you simply will not pay attention to, when the central problem is that you see nothing amiss in your making claims without knowledge - about the US judicial system, climate change, US politics, the Civil War in the US, and now US domestic politics - including the Republican Party and the current head of State.

    If Trump can make his peace with the US military, and shuck the forces of law and order currently attempting to hold him to account for his criminal behavior, he will take his place as a standard fascist despot. A cuadillo, only with the world's most powerful economy and most dangerous military at his disposal. Russia has only as much of a hold on him as US institutional powers can enforce.
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Sorry to butt in but you are not considering just how much water ( rain- humidity) we are talking about properly. No crop can survive being under meters of water. No human can survive high humidity and high temps ( wet bulb 35 dg c )
    It is not simply a matter of replacing crops for more water tolerant ones. Intense winds (storms) and high levels of flooding is the forecast rendering large areas of land unable to be farmed due to uncertainty and constant and repeating losses.
    The biggest problem about having Trump as POTUS is that the world desperately needs visionary leadership now, the sort of leadership that can prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Trump unfortunately is the more or less the exact opposite to what is needed.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I do not see actually any existential threats to the US. There is, of course, the serious economic threat of a crisis connected with the end of the petrodollar - when all the dollars which are now owned by foreigners start to flow back to the US, but this thread is not existential, the US will survive it. I have heard that a lot of Americans expect that in near future there may be a civil war inside the US, but I'm not sure about the reliability of this information. This would be, indeed, a serious threat. But this thread does not come from Trump, it could be started with attempts to get rid of him, based on such a perceived "threat from Trump". Or those who perceive immigration as an existential threat could start to use their own weapons to fight it. In both cases, those who see an existential threat from the other would be those who are the greatest threat themselves.
    Of course, everything can be too much. But, note, at the optimal temperature there would be the same territory unusable because it is too cold than too hot. We are far away from this. Of course, crops cannot survive under meters of water. Strangely, one of the first really big empires, Ancient Egypt, lived based on agriculture in a region where the whole territory used for agriculture was once a year under meters of water.
    Not at all. Of course, storms can do harm, but if they can be expected (and they can be - climate is something which predicts such probabilities) one can be prepared. Some losses do not make something completely unusable. Say, a 50% failure does not matter if the costs for the seeds are much less than the income from a successful harvest.
    The world certainly does not need US-American visions. So, Trump is good for those who want to realize their own visions. Some of these visions will end horribly, other vision will be better, but there will be enough visions to be tried out in a multipolar world.
    Of course. We have already clarified that counting wars makes not much sense. The point being?
    I can tell you which war was the most problematic: The Kosovo war. Bombing Belgrad was what has made Russia an enemy again. Because it was understood by the Russians - inclusive the pro-Western elites - as "you are the next".
    You quoted it distorting the context, and repeat this distortion here. It was the economic system of fascism which was introduced with the New Deal. Not the many other sides. (Ok, you know where you can find quotes which show that there were also a lot of other aspects of fascism, see liberal fascism. But this was not my point here.)
    First. you would have to show that there is some absurdity. Instead of only naming a statement absurd. Only after this, I may have a reason to do something.
    As usual, horror fantasies without anybody caring about consistency. More H2O in the air but less H2O coming out of the air. Sorry, I don't believe. Locally, ok, there may be regions with less rain/humidity or whatever else can be used by plants, but in the average more H2O in the air will lead to more H2O available to the plants too. If you think otherwise, please links to papers.
    Unfortunately, you don't give any. Because you obviously have none. Else, you would not write such things:
    Why? If some crank makes completely implausible claims without providing any evidence for this, I simply ignore such things.
    The US military is any way out of any constitutional control. For those outside the US that constitutional order is, therefore, quite irrelevant. People have recognized this, the Russians at the time of the bombing of Belgrad, and decided that the thing which gives them security from a US aggression is not the US constitutional order but military deterrence. So, now they have Avangard. And Kim has, similarly, decided that to have intercontinental rockets is better protection than the US constitutional order.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Until we built the Aswan Dam that gave electricity to the region and eroded all that fertile delta ground away.
    The method of seasonal "meters underwater" depends on regularity. Lives can be ordered around a regular seasonal change in environmental conditions. But that does not work with irregular weather patterns.

    As the average temperatures rise, evaporation will lower water levels in rivers, including the Nile. Lake Nasser will dry up and the dam does no longer provide electricity. It's all dead.

    Today's climate change is creating irregular and unpredictable weather patterns, combined with the lack of flooding affects the usual crop fertility and results in disaster to Nile Delta dwellers, not an opportunity to take advantage of any long benefits, if at all.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Then why are the government doors shut, depriving US citizens from public services for which they pay taxes and forcing people to work without pay while their property is confiscated for default?

    There is indeed an existential crisis brewing , but it does not come from the outside. This is an internal crisis and, by your own words, it is an artificial crisis, make no mistake. That makes it criminal, IMO.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Interesting how this works. The temperature is higher everywhere. If more water evaporates, depends on the amount of water which is there. There is a lot of water in the oceans. So, the additional evaporation will come, mostly, from the oceans. Instead, in the average the water which evaporates also falls down somewhere else. Ok, some of this also into the oceans, but, nonetheless, because the additional evaporation comes mainly from the ocean, and the rain may be everywhere, one can reasonably expect more additional rain coming down than water from the ground evaporating away.

    As usual for such considerations, locally this may be quite different. I'm arguing about the average. If the Nile Delta will be near the average (that means, getting more water) or not, the future will show. I see no reason to expect that this particular region will get less water. But, of course, in principle, given that nobody knows, one can fearmonger everywhere.
    Crop fertility is today managed with fertilizers. For unpredictable rain, there is now the Assuan dam.
    That's the usual political game show, not the first time, US government shutdowns are not really news, "oh, again a US government shutdown" is the only reaction outside the US. The first time this was interesting, but now it is boring, I don't even read articles about it. For the criminal behavior of the US in foreign countries, no decrease in money is detectable. If it is different inside, I don't know and don't care.
    The economic crisis which will follow the end of the petrodollar is not really artificial - it is the end of the nice time for the US when they could simply print green paper and all the world has accepted it as if it would be real money. This is simply the end of a particular redistribution from the world to America. This will lead to some crisis most of all in America, because it is America which gets much less income from printing paper than before, and it is from outside because the world does no longer want to pay the US for printing green paper.

    The political crisis has also some objective background, it is the different reaction of different parts of the US elites to the end of the unipolar world - is it better to accept it in a peaceful way and to adapt to the new situation, or better to fight for the world rule? So, what causes the disagreement is external too, and the conflict is also not really artificial - there are different strategies available, quite objectively. But what I can see is nonetheless highly irrational, and the anti-Trump mainstream seems, from the outside, much more irrational. So, if this would really lead to a civil war or so blame your own stupidity.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Well. things seem to be as usual. Nothing new. Always the same. Things are better than they have ever been!

    Everyone is hysterical for no reason whatever. There are no bad people. There are just rich people and jealous poor people. The enemy's at the gates. But that's ok, we'll build a wall better than the Chinese Wall.

    But the country is great again (where's my red cap?) and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, just like in the past.
    Slavery is the ultimate Capitalist way.

    Drill for more oil. Strength through exhaustion!!!

    Bring on the women, so we can have a party! You know pay 'em a couple of hundred thousand dollars to keep quiet, but you get to grab 'em everywhere, They like it!!!.

    Are you insane? Things are normal? The nation is distributing it's wealth by shutting down the government and not paying 800.000 + people!!!

    Trump is the master at declaring bankruptcy. He profits from it.

    How are those coal miners doing??? Where is the EPA?

    We are becoming a Third World country, both financially and in governance (dictatorship)

    Trump wants to be president for life? God help us! And I'm an atheist.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    Why is the government shut down so that 800,000 + people are not getting paid for honest labor?
    Where is the crisis that demands such drastic action.
    Are we declaring war on someone and we need all the resources we can muster?

    Enlighten me to the compelling events and logic that is currently guiding Mr. Trump's unilateral actions which negatively affect no one except US citizens?
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    George Carlin had the right idea how to balance the budget. Trump will jump at this one. Has one big fence, Trump's favorite subject.
    (warning extreme vulgar language)

    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Russia has been an enemy for a century now. There was window of opportunity after the Soviet collapse, but Reagan and Bush blew it.
    The US did not start any "Kosovo War" properly described.
    And the Kosovo bombing, however badly motivated and executed, was nowhere near as problematic as the Iraq War(s), either one if you count them as two. It was trivial, by comparison. To some Russian strongman-dependent snowflakes who panicked because their neighbor despot got bombed, maybe it was a big deal - but compared with the bad stuff the US launched in Iraq it was small potatoes.
    Your famous eyesight, again.
    Meanwhile, we are blaming "our" stupidity for Trump. Fascism is stupid governance - it doesn't work, something Russians will be discovering as well, if they haven't already noticed.
    Hold that thought. That is Republican governance, Trump governance - and it's not getting you what you claimed to expect. Where do you think you went wrong?
    You think you are safe from a rise of fascism in the US? Good luck with that.
    - - - -
    You don't know anything about the average. And you refuse to inform yourself, by checking with those who do know.
    If the localities worst subjected to AGW drought and torrent are the agricultural regions, as is predicted, the average effect of this "more rain" factor that has confused you will be detriment.
    The "more rain" you are babbling about will damage the world's agriculture, on average, if the "more likely" predictions of the climate researchers - the people who know what they are talking about - hold up.
    Why do you describe the calm, conservative, research and analysis backed predictions of the best informed people on the planet as "horror fantasies"?
    You mean crops, not "plants" - agriculture.
    The people who know what they are talking about say that probably isn't true.
    Droughts and floods are not managed with fertilizers. The Aswan Dam does not handle unpredictable rainfall. You don't know what you are talking about. You need information.
    Because you do not register or comprehend what others provide. You handle it as propaganda, without reference to physical reality.
    Until you acquire information, all your posts about climate change are going to be idiotic repostings of US wingnut media feeds - just as all your postings about Trump have been. You are trapped in the same silly bubble as the US Trump voters, for much the same reasons, and nothing will get you out except your own gathering of information.

    How do I know? From shit like this:
    Like I said: when you post stuff that goofy, that idiotic, the fact that it matches the familiar media feeds of the US corporate Republican disinformation and propaganda operations is not a coincidence. You're being played by pros.

    And that factor is the central factor of the latest Republican Presidency.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    LOL, that is so typical. Albert Bartlett addressed this very assertion in relation to the exponential function, where a prominent citizen observed that the mathematics of the exponential function do not hold at the local level but only at planetary scales.
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. What Reagan and Bush did was, from this point of view, more or less unproblematic. Except for the support of Chechen terrorists, which was undercover, with only Saudi Arabia being more or less visible. It was Clinton who blew it, and the Kosovo war was the key event here.
    LOL. But it was this war which essentially finished that "window of opportunity". BTW, it was not "Kosovo bombing", but "Belgrad bombing". Bombing civilians in a big city.
    Of course, fascism is stupid. Socialism too. Communism is even more stupid. Russia, in fact, avoids this stupidity. They become more and more a low tax country where it is easy to start a business. There is, of course, yet far too much government stupidity as usual in corporatism. But a lot of things are done to simplify the bureaucratic procedures to decrease the power of the bureaucracy and the corresponding stupidity. At least Russians do notice such changes, and they like them. (Here I can rely only on Russian bloggers, I have no personal experience with Russian bureaucracy after 2007.)
    The same was true in Obama time when I have made this observation that the criminal actions in foreign countries continued despite the government shutdown.
    As safe as possible. Deterrence works for fascists too, as well as for liberals. It does not work for some of them, but in general it works.
    As usual, no link to any source which does know. "Checking" means, I would guess, simply believing what you claim.
    I don't. Link some "calm, conservative, research and analysis backed predictions", I will take a look, and after this I will explain and justify my opinion. If I will name them "horror fantasies" we will see.
    If I write "plants" I mean "plants". Feel free to quote those people. We will see. I would guess, the "probably" will appear to be a sloppy formulation of "it cannot be completely excluded".
    Of course, not. And I have not claimed such nonsense. Learn to read, don't forget about the context completely.
    There is no such animal as completely unpredictable rainfall. Rainfalls may be very volatile, but the average is predictable, and the volatility is handled by dams.
    That's not a justification for not giving any evidence for your claims. First of all, because it is, as usual, defamation. Of course, I detect propaganda, but I extract information even from propaganda sources and reject only that part of the information which serves propagandistic aims and cannot be easily checked. Then, don't forget that other people read this too, they may read the links you provide or conclude as well that you have none.
    Have you some arguments for naming it shit, or do you think that naming something "shit" is already sufficient? Feel free to name some important differences between a corporatist economic order and the New Deal, then we will see.
    Why do you ask me? These are your domestic policy problems. I care about problems which negatively affect other people. I hope (in your interest) you will be more competent about your own problems than me.

    I can only give you some very general recommendations from outside. The first one would be "don't trust your media, think yourself". This is because they lie whenever they write about something I can check, and I see no reason to expect that they will be more honest about US-domestic issues.

    The second recommendation is: Avoid, at any costs, a civil war. I recognize very well that there are situations where a civil war is less horrible than submission to those in power, I have been in such a situation myself (1989 Eastern Germany) and preferred the risk of a confrontation, so I know what I'm talking about. My argument is, therefore, not the completely pacifistic one. It is the libertarian one, that a civil war in America today will be only a war between two factions of the same swamp, and you will not gain much whoever wins. I have fought for the possibility to travel around the world and the right to read whatever I like, these were things worth to risk something. You have nothing to gain in such a civil war.

    Feel free to address this very assertion here, following the example of Albert Bartlett, for the quite different question discussed here.

    The physics of climate science hold, of course, everywhere. The average over the whole world is simply much easier to handle mathematically, that's all. This is because some local issues - particular mountains in the way of particular winds and so on - can distort the averages. The mountains, of course, remain unchanged, but the patterns of the winds change with temperature. So, if the winds were nice, giving a lot of rain now, the winds after warming may become worse for some region, which gains droughts. Some other region will gain even more rains than expected by the average increase in rain.

    I would guess your Albert Bartlett has addressed another quite funny argument of type everywhere there could be some growth, but in the average of the whole world, everything could be stable. This would be, indeed, nonsense, but this is exactly the nonsense proposed by my opponents. Everywhere locally is drought but in the average more rain. My point is quite different. The average is much simpler to handle, so I can check such things myself. (This is, of course, error-prone, but as long as nobody presents links which explains why in the average the situation is different, it is fine.) More H2O in the air means, in this average, more H2O available to plants. Then, of course, there may be localities where the result is drought, because of some exceptional local circumstances. But these will be local exceptions, the average will be more H2O available to plants. So, there will be also places which are drought today where agriculture becomes better. And the latter case will be more common, given the average. The average describes what we would have to expect locally too. Everything else is a local distortion, which in one location points in one direction, in another location in the opposite one.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What on earth is that supposed to mean?
    Do you mean you observed Russia continued their criminal actions despite the US government shut-down?

    I take it you supported the shutdown?

    Or are you saying that Obama was a criminal president, but Trump and Putin are "good guys"?
    Or do you think the current US government shut down and objective will influence the world in a positive way?

    Remember you already stipulated there is no immediate crisis or existential threat to the US, (except from within).

    Please explain?
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Of course, not. The US (in particular, the various US security services, CIA and so on) continue their criminal actions despite the US government shut-down. I don't remember the particular evidence provided that the illegal CIA actions have not been endangered by this, maybe it was even no particular evidence of a particular crime during the shutdown, but simply an explanation of the legal situation (what will be closed and what would not).
    I observed it with some interest. As a libertarian, I think a complete government shutdown would, in the long range, have positive consequences, but, of course, there would be short-time negative effects because of the transition. In all the cases I know where, because of a long-time political conflict, there simply was no working government (not because of a failed state, but simply extended cabinet crisis) these have been good times for the whole country. The situation with a failed state is more complex, local gang rule is essentially not much different from government rule of the same size, so even libertarian theory necessarily predicts that such situations are good. Moreover, a failed state is a playground for the big powers, and are much more helpless against aggressions of big players. Nonetheless, there was, for example, a time when in the failed state of Somalia the price for phone communication was the cheapest one for the whole Africa, simply because there was free competition between the providers.
    A complete shutdown of everything related with the US federal government would not be that harmful, given that the states could continue their work, so everything that is important for the population could continue as before. They could easily subdivide the army, or dispose of it completely (with some increase for the police forces of the states), it would not harm the US population because there are no external enemies which want to occupy the US. If they would not be stupid they would remain an area without internal border controls and so on. So, all that would be lost is either useless for the US population or could be easily taken over by the states (which would gain their part of the taxes going to the federal government now.)
    Obama, as well as Trump, are certainly criminal. They have both started bombing other countries without any legitimation. I have not seen good evidence for Putin being criminal in this sense.
    I think it will not influence the world at all. It is a completely domestic issue.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    An internal existential threat.

    And you believe any policy difference warrants a government shut down?
    Who do you think gets hurt in a government shut down?

    As for the rest, I'll leave that to others to seek clarification.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I have no opinion about infights in the leadership of criminal organizations like states which would use words like "warrants". Such gangs have some internal rules, which are useful to minimize the harm caused by such infights, but I do not care about them. If, say, Al Capone kills in some infight a competitor, following all the rules of honor of the mafia, I would nonetheless not name this killing "warranted". Would you? Who is harmed most? It depends. An internal conflict between the mafia bosses is dangerous for many small gang members who have to kill the gang members of the other side, but there is also collateral damage among the civilian population. Similarly, the greatest harm of a government shutdown is for the small gang members of the state - those directly working for the government, if they don't get paid during that time. There may be also collateral damage for civilians, given that they cannot use some services usually provided by the government bureaucracy. I have heard about, say, memorials or parks (where bureaucrats do nothing necessary, beyond extracting entry fees) may be closed in such a time, leaving even foreign tourists as collateral damage.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I think I'll rest my case.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page