Exxon’s Rex Tillerson Is The Candidate for Secretary of State

[Glorious Leader]

I think people are a bit blinded by money and what it actually represents. Money is the grease the keeps the economic wheels turning. It has no value. Resources are the fuel that feeds the machine. They have the real value.

The real questions should be at what point will we be unable to grow any further and start to contract back towards a sustainable level of resource spending? How abruptly will we run out of resources? And when will we realize collectively that we are running out? How will resource scarcity be managed? Will the middle class disappear again? Money doesn't factor into any of these questions because it isn't a limited resource.

Its the difference betweem nominal and real costs.

[Skroe]

You think Trump has any clue on what an America first policy entails beyond his slogan and Ego Trip? There's a reason it's schizophrenic; he's clueless and impressionable.

On a side note, there seems to be serious push back regarding Bolton becoming state's #2, apparently including from Tillerson himself.

No, I don't. I'm mostly marveling at it all and just trying to make informed guesses on how things could sort themselves.

I maintain what I said in November, which is I expect a major administration collapse within the first two years, kind of how the Bush Neocon's collapsed in 2006/early 2007. I think the under-resourced, under-manned Flynn faction are going to find it extraordinarily hard to get anything done in the face of "the Blob" of the National Security Establishment. Barack Obama had a unified National Security team on the same page (no more Team of Rivals) since his 2012 re-election, trying to act against "the Blob" and he completely failed.

There is no reason to believe Trump will be any more successful. Again, it is worth stating, Flynn is a madman. But in her own ways, Susan Rice has equally as horrible perspectives about the world and America's role in it (just different ones). We already have a garbage, bizarre National Security Adviser who is weirdly close to the President and resented by everyone except him. So in a sense, we're living Flynn already.... just, he's his own type of crazy. Rice isn't any more a part of the National Security consensus than Flynn is.

All of this is terribly disappointing, because the two wars have produced an exceptional generation of National Security experts. America has some really smart, talented people, with excellent ideas in the foreign policy and defense establishments right now. But they rarely get to lead. Aside from a brief period between mid 2007-mid 2012ish, it's been Neocons on the right and Joe Biden's outsider hacks on the left. The immensely talented center had about 4 years to clean up the mess the Neocons made, largely did it, and then had their good work largely undone by the Susan Rice-ilk's mess.

[prwraith]

I always find the union hate amusing. People believe that if we get rid of unions that businesses will just play nice and continue to give employees good pay and benefits out of the goodness of their hearts, even in the absence of union group-negotiation.

Bahahahaha.

O.o

All the states without unions seem to have businesses competing with eachother instead of their employees.

We have benefits that rock, pay that's constantly increasing, and no unions.

Perfect example; I manage a call center in a town with about 9 call centers. We just raised our base pay to steal from them, increased our PTO package, and our dental/vision/medical already rocked.

[NYC17]

No, I don't. I'm mostly marveling at it all and just trying to make informed guesses on how things could sort themselves.

I maintain what I said in November, which is I expect a major administration collapse within the first two years, kind of how the Bush Neocon's collapsed in 2006/early 2007. I think the under-resourced, under-manned Flynn faction are going to find it extraordinarily hard to get anything done in the face of "the Blob" of the National Security Establishment. Barack Obama had a unified National Security team on the same page (no more Team of Rivals) since his 2012 re-election, trying to act against "the Blob" and he completely failed.

There is no reason to believe Trump will be any more successful. Again, it is worth stating, Flynn is a madman. But in her own ways, Susan Rice has equally as horrible perspectives about the world and America's role in it (just different ones). We already have a garbage, bizarre National Security Adviser who is weirdly close to the President and resented by everyone except him. So in a sense, we're living Flynn already.... just, he's his own type of crazy. Rice isn't any more a part of the National Security consensus than Flynn is.

All of this is terribly disappointing, because the two wars have produced an exceptional generation of National Security experts. America has some really smart, talented people, with excellent ideas in the foreign policy and defense establishments right now. But they rarely get to lead. Aside from a brief period between mid 2007-mid 2012ish, it's been Neocons on the right and Joe Biden's outsider hacks on the left. The immensely talented center had about 4 years to clean up the mess the Neocons made, largely did it, and then had their good work largely undone by the Susan Rice-ilk's mess.

Assuming your argument that Rice is just as dangerous as Flynn(she's not) has merit, Obama has proven he is exponentially more capable of making an informed decision. So all things being equal(they aren't, because Flynn is much worse) we are far worse off and being done a disservice by Flynn's presence.

[Skroe]

This, along with the Congressional push to keep NASA on track, is one of the few silver linings about the coming government.

How likely, do you think, is the Pentagon to intentionally scuttle any attempt to buddy buddy with Russia or try to neuter a premature challenge to China?

People on forums... idiots in the press... can say whatever they want about Russian and American relations.

The fact of the matter is, once again, Barack Obama and John Kerry arranged a Russian+American partnership in September in Syria... something that the Pentagon, the State Department, and I believe Susan Rice even thought was ill advised. And even though ordered to carry it out despite intense disagreement, the Pentagon arranged for the "accidental" bombing of 60 Syrian troops two days before the agreement went into force, thus killing the deal in it's crib. That is how things work. That is how things always work. There are yellow lines on policy, and when elected officials step outside of them, for decades the State Department professional work force and the Pentagon have steered them back in.

If Putin tried to do anything with regards to Russia that undermined national security, the Pentagon would slow it, kill it or undermine it. The red line for the Pentagon in the above example is that Russia wanted, and Obama agreed to, Russia being included in on the Pentagon's intelligence network in the broader middle east, which would have given them access to the position of every American special operations unit, every CIA paramilitary adviser, every group working on our behalf. Everything. The crown jewels of America's operations in the Middle East. Clearly you can see, why that was a line too far.

If Trump tried something like that with regards to Europe or the Middle East again, you'd see something similar. "Things would happen" so to speak. The Pentagon did this other times during the Obama years, but also during the Bush and Clinton years as well.

As for China, if anything, the Pentagon wants a freer hand. The US Navy just started to do freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea earlier this year. It took them 4 years of lobbying the Obama Administration and being basically insubordinate to it in the process of Congressional testimony, to get to that point... which was 4 years that China built those islands. But I think there is a fine line between being assertive and picking a fight. The Pentagon isn't remotely looking to pick a fight with China and will actively work to stop it through under-reporting readiness (which to be fair, they've been doing for the past two years to make the budget crunch look worse than it is) and delaying ship deployments. But they'll enthusiastically defense US interests in the region.

Think about it like this. Hypothetically if thise drone seizure had happened under Trump's watch, the US Navy would very much want to send a few Destroyers to make a show of force (something that watchers are just aghast Obama didn't order) and ward off China by reminding them of how overmatched they are. But they'd, in the decision making process about a response, resist an equally inflammatory countermeasure, like seizing a Chinese drone or shooting the ship that seized it.

By the way, another great irony likely to happen on both the State and Defense front: expect Trump's Syria policy to be essentially identical to Obama's. Maybe he'll add another 1000 troops or send in B-1Bs in some hyped display of showmanship (even though B-1Bs were there earlier in the year and withdrawn for planned modernization and maintenance and replaced with B-52s). But unless he orders in 150,000 troops... and he won't because the Army would basically revolt and he'd have to publicly fire pretty much every General in it... there isn't much too change other than loosening the rules of engagement back to sane levels.

We're about to get an excellent lesson in the importance of institutions in Democracies in any event. Institutions stabilize, and while some may be deeply disturbed the US Navy doesn't throw itself at whatever crazy scheme an elected official concocts, I think rather there is immense wisdom and benefits in a second layer of stabilization through institutions. It'll reduce the chance of miscalculation.

[Caolela]

This has been common since they said lead in the gas is safe. But Exxon has also been making billions in profits while getting government subsidies and tax refunds.

And yet, the half-witted right-wingers and even some "centrists" scream daily about the working poor or even so-called middle-class being "entitled" and getting "handouts" - which is comparatively a drop in the bucket compared to the billions in corporate welfare that's doled out to the Exxon's and ilk. Corporations that are making record profits and don't need it.

[CostinR]

Flynn is a madman.

What exactly makes you say that. I've looked at Flynn's history and he quit the Obama administration because they refused to listen on how their actions in Syria would lead to the rise of Al-Nusra. He said this.

"Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria ... they shoved him out. He wouldn't shut up."[27] In an interview with Al Jazeera, Flynn criticized the Obama administration for its delay in supporting the opposition in Syria, thereby allowing for the growth of Al Nusra and other extremist forces: "when you don’t get in and help somebody, they’re gonna find other means to achieve their goals" and that "we should have done more earlier on in this effort, you know, than we did."

As for defense spending

But here's the rub. This is an EXTREMELY aggressive defense procurement plan. This would make the US military at, by far, its most comprehensively potent since the Cold War in terms of numbers. It is exactly the kind of military you'd want if your foreign policy was of military interventionism, policing the world... that sort of thing. In fact the ENTIRE PURPOSE of more carriers, large surface combatants and attack submarines is to police far distant areas of the world in force.

Which is to say, it's in direct conflict with Donald Trump's America First policy and any kind of talk of retrenchment and focusing on national matters at home.

You seem to have the wrong way of thinking on what Trump wants to do, he's no isolationist as some have cast him. He pledged to massively upgrade the US military and demanded that other nations also spend more. He called out Germany which has a budget surplus and only spends 1.2% of it's GDP on defense.

[NYC17]

What exactly makes you say that. I've looked at Flynn's history and he quit the Obama administration because they refused to listen on how their actions in Syria would lead to the rise of Al-Nusra. He said this.



As for defense spending



You seem to have the wrong way of thinking on what Trump wants to do, he's no isolationist as some have cast him. He pledged to massively upgrade the US military and demanded that other nations also spend more. He called out Germany which has a budget surplus and only spends 1.2% of it's GDP on defense.

Well we know you can use Wikipedia, so how about reading the other things regarding him...in that very same article?

[Skroe]

Assuming your argument that Rice is just as dangerous as Flynn(she's not) has merit, Obama has proven he is exponentially more capable of making an informed decision. So all things being equal(they aren't, because Flynn is much worse) we are far worse off and being done a disservice by Flynn's presence.

Don't kid yourself. Obama "making an informed decision' has allowed:

-The threat from Russia to grow for years and years, and metastasize in Europe, the Middle East and Cyber Space.
-The threat from China to grow for years and years, and metastasize in the South China Sea. Island build much?
-The threat from North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program to mature.
-The Syrian Civil War to turn from a golden opportunity for Asymmetric Warfare versus Russia/Iran into an American-credibility destroying fiasco.
-American credibility to be undermined around the world, first in Syria with the "Red Line" and then again, last week, with his non-response to the China-Drone fiasco.


Obama's a showman. He comes off as intellectual, but he's been paralyzed by indecision and fear of risk and cost for years and years. He refuses to answer force with force and defines American interests so narrowly as to create massive openings for revisionist actors in the world. His obsession with second and third order effect chains has lead to America's pointless retreat around the world through innaction. Doing nothing is making a decision in and of itself, and that was often his case.

The guy's been a slick talking foreign policy menace from top to bottom, and regardless of Trump, it's good we're finally rid of him. He has absolutely no sense of American power, how to maintain it, how to build it, or how to expend it. He would have been a far better Prime Minister of Finland or something, than President of the United States, because that side of his job is a huge part of his job, and he has been a comprehensive failure at it.


Moreover that ridiculous rhetoric about how our values protect us, which this bloody fool was still moralizing over this week, rings hollow in the face of implacable enemies which legitimately do not give a crap about our moral superiority. Happy talk is fine, but it must be accompanied by concrete actions, which it is not. The response to Russian hacking is not to write a report on it... it's to destroy a billion dollars worth of Russian computers, seize Russian financal assets and maybe shut down the Sochii (Putin's favorite spot) power grid just to make a point. Power is one part respect, one part fear. Obama did much to restore America's moral standing in the world. Good job there. But he did nothing to service the other side of our power, which is to remind our enemies they are should fear antagonizing us.

Everything is encapsulated in Obama's bizarre ridiculing that Russia's actions in Ukraine and Syria are out of the 19th century. The ridiculing was not accompanied by policies meant to sufficiently alter Russian behavior to illustrate why that "19th century thinking" as he called it was obsolete. Boot Russia out of Swift. Give Ukraine heavy weapons. He said a bunch of happy talk about the liberal world order but did jack all to actually defend it.

These list of failures were principally the result of terrible advice Obama got from two people: Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes.

George W. Bush was a failure of a foreign policy President because he recklessly misued and undermined American power for dubious ends. The cost was not remotely worth the reward. Barack Obama was a failure of a foreign policy President because he did not understand, and feared to used American power, and acted aggressively to undermine America's role in the world.

Today Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are stronger, because Barack Obama should have been a one term President and failed to understand that the world's only superpower and the leader of the liberal world order must always confront revisionist aggressors, or they _will_ wrack up meaningful wins.

[Zmaniac17]

Don't kid yourself. Obama "making an informed decision' has allowed:

-The threat from Russia to grow for years and years, and metastasize in Europe, the Middle East and Cyber Space.
-The threat from China to grow for years and years, and metastasize in the South China Sea. Island build much?
-The threat from North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program to mature.
-The Syrian Civil War to turn from a golden opportunity for Asymmetric Warfare versus Russia/Iran into an American-credibility destroying fiasco.
-American credibility to be undermined around the world, first in Syria with the "Red Line" and then again, last week, with his non-response to the China-Drone fiasco.


Obama's a showman. He comes off as intellectual, but he's been paralyzed by indecision and fear of risk and cost for years and years. He refuses to answer force with force and defines American interests so narrowly as to create massive openings for revisionist actors in the world. His obsession with second and third order effect chains has lead to America's pointless retreat around the world through innaction. Doing nothing is making a decision in and of itself, and that was often his case.

The guy's been a slick talking foreign policy menace from top to bottom, and regardless of Trump, it's good we're finally rid of him. He has absolutely no sense of American power, how to maintain it, how to build it, or how to expend it. He would have been a far better Prime Minister of Finland or something, than President of the United States, because that side of his job is a huge part of his job, and he has been a comprehensive failure at it.


Moreover that ridiculous rhetoric about how our values protect us, which this bloody fool was still moralizing over this week, rings hollow in the face of implacable enemies which legitimately do not give a crap about our moral superiority. Happy talk is fine, but it must be accompanied by concrete actions, which it is not. The response to Russian hacking is not to write a report on it... it's to destroy a billion dollars worth of Russian computers, seize Russian financal assets and maybe shut down the Sochii (Putin's favorite spot) power grid just to make a point. Power is one part respect, one part fear. Obama did much to restore America's moral standing in the world. Good job there. But he did nothing to service the other side of our power, which is to remind our enemies they are should fear antagonizing us.

Everything is encapsulated in Obama's bizarre ridiculing that Russia's actions in Ukraine and Syria are out of the 19th century. The ridiculing was not accompanied by policies meant to sufficiently alter Russian behavior to illustrate why that "19th century thinking" as he called it was obsolete. Boot Russia out of Swift. Give Ukraine heavy weapons. He said a bunch of happy talk about the liberal world order but did jack all to actually defend it.

These list of failures were principally the result of terrible advice Obama got from two people: Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes.

George W. Bush was a failure of a foreign policy President because he recklessly misued and undermined American power for dubious ends. The cost was not remotely worth the reward. Barack Obama was a failure of a foreign policy President because he did not understand, and feared to used American power, and acted aggressively to undermine America's role in the world.

Today Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are stronger, because Barack Obama should have been a one term President and failed to understand that the world's only superpower and the leader of the liberal world order must always confront revisionist aggressors, or they _will_ wrack up meaningful wins.

Wow, I'm glad you aren't in charge. We be at war with everyone. You said it yourself doing nothing is making a decision. The military isn't a scalpel, its a wrecking ball. And maybe you forgot China and Russia both have a lot of nuclear missiles. And maybe that's a good thing since nobody has tried to take over the world for a while. Although it seems like you want us to try.

[Skroe]

Wow, I'm glad you aren't in charge. We be at war with everyone. You said it yourself doing nothing is making a decision. The military isn't a scalpel, its a wrecking ball. And maybe you forgot China and Russia both have a lot of nuclear missiles. And maybe that's a good thing since nobody has tried to take over the world for a while. Although it seems like you want us to try.

No. You misunderstand me in a fundamental way. Don't take what I wrote as an invitation for us to go around the world and beat everybody up. That is MOST CERTAINLY not what I want. My foreign policy beliefs are far more constrained than that.

But what they are is decisive. When you act, you act in a way that allows you to set terms. Overwhelming. Uncompromising. Definitively. National interests should not be overly broad, but neither should they be absurdly narrow (which is Obama's failure).

Want an example? Syria and Iraq. They're like... what, ~10,000 troops in Syria and Iraq now all put together, maybe a little south of that? With thousands more in Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and so forth. Rather than actively decisively, Obama added 500 here, 1000 there. All adding up to the number that was suggested from the get go to act as an instrument of a decisive policy.

This goes with what I said about Syria. Either Obama should have gotten further involved and given the rebels the heavy weapons they needed to win, so America could achieve a desirable outcome... or he should have kept the US out of it entirely. instead this awful middleground was achieved, where we made a situation worse, but denied ourselves the means to which to create a desirable outcome for our interests.

I don't want the US to go to war against Russia, or China, or anybody else. But we must defend our interests and we must act decisively. A decisive policy could have nipped Russia in the bud years ago. A decisive policy could have slowed or halted China island building. Instead in both places, Obama became obsessed with second order effects and ordered a constraining, gradualism policy that just ceded time and opportunities to the other side.

That is just a fundamental mistake. Obama's job is not be a mediator between American interests and the world, or a constrainer of American power in the face of the world's concern about the gap between our power and their own. Rather his job is to be its leader, its chief advocate, its director. That doesn't mean military aggression. That doesn't mean stepping on the weak. What that does mean is making red lines mean something and pushing our interests in a decisive way that serves to build our power.

[NYC17]

Don't kid yourself. Obama "making an informed decision' has allowed:

-The threat from Russia to grow for years and years, and metastasize in Europe, the Middle East and Cyber Space.
-The threat from China to grow for years and years, and metastasize in the South China Sea. Island build much?
-The threat from North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program to mature.
-The Syrian Civil War to turn from a golden opportunity for Asymmetric Warfare versus Russia/Iran into an American-credibility destroying fiasco.
-American credibility to be undermined around the world, first in Syria with the "Red Line" and then again, last week, with his non-response to the China-Drone fiasco.


Obama's a showman. He comes off as intellectual, but he's been paralyzed by indecision and fear of risk and cost for years and years. He refuses to answer force with force and defines American interests so narrowly as to create massive openings for revisionist actors in the world. His obsession with second and third order effect chains has lead to America's pointless retreat around the world through innaction. Doing nothing is making a decision in and of itself, and that was often his case.

The guy's been a slick talking foreign policy menace from top to bottom, and regardless of Trump, it's good we're finally rid of him. He has absolutely no sense of American power, how to maintain it, how to build it, or how to expend it. He would have been a far better Prime Minister of Finland or something, than President of the United States, because that side of his job is a huge part of his job, and he has been a comprehensive failure at it.


Moreover that ridiculous rhetoric about how our values protect us, which this bloody fool was still moralizing over this week, rings hollow in the face of implacable enemies which legitimately do not give a crap about our moral superiority. Happy talk is fine, but it must be accompanied by concrete actions, which it is not. The response to Russian hacking is not to write a report on it... it's to destroy a billion dollars worth of Russian computers, seize Russian financal assets and maybe shut down the Sochii (Putin's favorite spot) power grid just to make a point. Power is one part respect, one part fear. Obama did much to restore America's moral standing in the world. Good job there. But he did nothing to service the other side of our power, which is to remind our enemies they are should fear antagonizing us.

Everything is encapsulated in Obama's bizarre ridiculing that Russia's actions in Ukraine and Syria are out of the 19th century. The ridiculing was not accompanied by policies meant to sufficiently alter Russian behavior to illustrate why that "19th century thinking" as he called it was obsolete. Boot Russia out of Swift. Give Ukraine heavy weapons. He said a bunch of happy talk about the liberal world order but did jack all to actually defend it.

These list of failures were principally the result of terrible advice Obama got from two people: Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes.

George W. Bush was a failure of a foreign policy President because he recklessly misued and undermined American power for dubious ends. The cost was not remotely worth the reward. Barack Obama was a failure of a foreign policy President because he did not understand, and feared to used American power, and acted aggressively to undermine America's role in the world.

Today Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are stronger, because Barack Obama should have been a one term President and failed to understand that the world's only superpower and the leader of the liberal world order must always confront revisionist aggressors, or they _will_ wrack up meaningful wins.

Russia was going to grow regardless. The days of America controlling everything that happens in the world are over. It's not because of Obama, or what you claim is his weakness. It's because the American population is sick of it. The Iraq/Afghanistan endless war, terrorism, ignorance and refusal of "conservatives" to acknowledge our role in creating problems, all these thing shave contributed far more to it than "Obama isn't enough of a leaderly leader".

China is going to grow regardless. Pretending that projecting our might, and once again, controlling everything that happens in the world, is a viable way forward whether it be diplomatically, militarily, or economically is a pipe dream of those stuck in the past. The world has changed, is changing every day, and the inability to change with it will doom us faster than any perceived "aggressive undermining" you claim Obama accomplished. All the saber rattling about China is an exercise in futility.

North Korea's program has been "maturing" for decades. Putting that on Obama is disingenuous at best; a self serving "Obama bad because he's not Republican enough for me" at worst.

Syria. The American people had zero interest in involving themselves in another Middle Eastern civil war. And at some point Skroe, when it comes to war, you have to listen to the population. It doesn't require an essay to understand why.

You don't like Obama, and I get why. He doesn't align with your views. He represented a new approach to the world, a more pragmatic one. I wouldn't expect you to like him, but the idea that "regardless of Trump it's good we're finally rid of him"? Yea, that's some scary shit you're advocating.

[Cthulhu 2020]

O.o

All the states without unions seem to have businesses competing with eachother instead of their employees.

We have benefits that rock, pay that's constantly increasing, and no unions.

Perfect example; I manage a call center in a town with about 9 call centers. We just raised our base pay to steal from them, increased our PTO package, and our dental/vision/medical already rocked.

Your jobs not being complete and utter shite doesn't mean that you wouldn't benefit from unions. Pay and benefits markedly go sharply down whenever a union is busted up.

I realize people begrude a hundred bucks a month in union fees, but most not smart enough to see it don't realize that hundred bucks a month tends to translate into tens of thousands a year in direct pay and benefits.

Businesses with unions still compete with other businesses, so I'm not sure where that came from. Labor, while a significant cost of doing business, is not an enormous one. The wealthy business owners sure have done a good job of convincing those who benefit from unions that unions are bad. Seeing as how the wealthy business owners are the only ones who directly lose out when it comes to the existence of unions.

But I feel like taking for granted the things others have fought hard for you to have is the conservative way. EPA keeps your environment safe, but people want to do away with them because they just assume businesses will be on their best behavior and not make the places we live in toxic. OSHA ensures that businesses cutting corners doesn't result in you losing a limb or your life, but people feel like businesses won't cut a few corners to save on costs. Scientists come up with vaccinations that allow us to live in a world without a plethora of life threatening and changing diseases, and some they think we'll be fine without the vaccinations now that the diseases are "gone" even though they come back when pockets of anti-vaxxers gather together.

Either way, the naivete of people who take for granted things others have fought for never ceases to amaze.

[volkanik]

Good choice. Hopefully he can allow us and Russia to become solid allies. Hilary would have started the next Cold War with Russia.

[Elegiac]

Good choice. Hopefully he can allow us and Russia to become solid allies. Hilary would have started the next Cold War with Russia.

There is absolutely no benefit in the US allying with Russia. Their interests are contrary to the West's.

[Caolela]

Your jobs not being complete and utter shite doesn't mean that you wouldn't benefit from unions. Pay and benefits markedly go sharply down whenever a union is busted up.

I realize people begrude a hundred bucks a month in union fees, but most not smart enough to see it don't realize that hundred bucks a month tends to translate into tens of thousands a year in direct pay and benefits.

...

Not to mention productivity gains that stopped going to workers in the early 80s - not coincidentally around the time that Reagan's union-busting tactics came into the picture.

"Clearly, hourly workers began losing significant ground on the productivity/wage ratio chart around 1980 and, despite ever-increasing productivity growth, have continued to see their wages flatline.




"So where did the money from all that productivity growth go? That's easy to see on this graph:"





"Obviously, almost all income growth and standard of living improvements in the last 30 years went to the Top 1%. Some may argue that much of the growth among the economic elite came through investment gains and the tax advantages afforded to capital gains. Surprisingly, while the investment income gap also widened, this graph, which tracks income growth among the top 10% both with and without capital gains, shows that non-investment income grew at an exponential rate for the privileged few as well:"




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/29/887130/-

[NYC17]

There is absolutely no benefit in the US allying with Russia. Their interests are contrary to the West's.

It's going to be interesting as hell to watch Republicans deal with Trump the next few years

[volkanik]

There is absolutely no benefit in the US allying with Russia. Their interests are contrary to the West's.

Yeah there is. We shouldn't be supporting the rebels in Syria, we should be backing Assad. Look what happened when we decided to "liberate" Iraq, and free them from Saddam. There was a power struggle, and thus ISIS was formed. Russia doesn't want a repeat of history. At least dictators as evil as they may be keep order over there. The idea of democracy is foreign to them. Sorry if the Clinton News Network brainwashed you into thinking Russia are the "bad guys".

[Kraenen]

The days of America controlling everything that happens in the world are over. It's not because of Obama, or what you claim is his weakness. It's because the American population is sick of it. The Iraq/Afghanistan endless war, terrorism, ignorance and refusal of "conservatives" to acknowledge our role in creating problems, all these thing shave contributed far more to it than "Obama isn't enough of a leaderly leader".

I don't get this. The average American probably doesn't have much connection to those wars, much less likely to feel the real effects of a real war. It's more likely psychosomatic - that is, people keep saying "oh my god America is just so tired of being world police, everyone is tired of war" and that gives them the physical impression that they've actually been in a war when they haven't.

[NYC17]

Yeah there is. We shouldn't be supporting the rebels in Syria, we should be backing Assad. Look what happened when we decided to "liberate" Iraq, and free them from Saddam. There was a power struggle, and thus ISIS was formed. Russia doesn't want a repeat of history. At least dictators as evil as they may be keep order over there. The idea of democracy is foreign to them.

Russia's support for Assad has nothing to do with historical context, interest, or morals.