Note to all billionaires especially those with holdings 50 b

World wide appllocation would be impossible, but it would reinforce GOP~Trump credibility of supporting a National focused enterprise, and reduce the cleavage which has been produced between the producers and the consumers of.bad faith.

This may be the only last ditch effort of.resolving the acid atmosphere that has no salvage, either on the national or the international politocal stage.
Underestimating the constituency has had.plenty of warned., ignored calamitous effects, and the regurgitated innoscence of underlings has had plenty of catastrophic precedents, graveyards are full of them.

Denial nowadays, doesent appear as an option, the time has come to face clarity and openness. the alternative imbues a possible very heavy price, more than evocations of sighs of regret.

What the federal government won’t see or pay for, the constituency will habe to always pay.

[quote=“Meno_”]
Dear Sirs, to whom it may concernloom

It would take 10 billion dollars to set people up and relieve them from homeleasnes.

In many cases, with Capital accumulations of more then 50 nip
to 100 billion , (accepted to grow to a trillion ) Amazon, apple, wallmart, facebook, Gm, Ford, General Mills, Rockefeller fortune, Microsoft, and others)

You guys could very easily drop less then 1 percent of net holdings , or 2 percent of Your average yearly income in alleviating homelessness completely.

Of course qualifying families, veterans , drug users, and recently arrived unlawful immigrants would present a problem of building a bureaucratic institution with problems about deep pocket theft and graft, which could be policed.

Another problem of eroding the line between lower economic classes by such poor but not yet hopelessly unemployed , quitting their habitat , in order to qualify, and even the middle class resentment factored in, but again, this could all be prepared and pre planned .

The major problem is that capitalism can not due without huge contrast. Its simply inconceivable , even now, to see a marginal equivalency between the sharply defined middle and lower echelons of the wealthy.

But You gentlemen , holding more then 50 per.cent of.all wealth , You , consisting a mere 2 per cent of total US population, maybe less , (maybe even projecting to 1 percent or below, -present a travesty which really gives only lip service to any account of so called -Democratic Pronciples’

The word on the street is that all politi cal agendas, irrespective of these substantial ‘misnomers’, will fall flat whem long term accounts are found far short of any kind of social responsibility.

The aristocratic guillotine may yet be a reminder where certain limits are recognized to be counter productive, irrespective of semantic rationalizations , within which aristocracy is changing into autocracy, and without which things can’t go on as usual

That limit appears to be 1 trillion dollars.of capitalization, and the realization of even higher numbers , extended into the coming New World Order appears to indicate.it.

That is, after all the final arbiter of all ideologies and programs conceivable!

What say You? In a time of imminentl and present danger?

Can not charitable contributions be morphed by faux transformations of red scare.ex-compatriots, see this merely as an insurance policy, where ordinary charity is ripped off by the beurocratic underpinned pork who are usually rewarded by lion scaled rewards?

What ?

Method:

Here are some current statistics that show affordability:

According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report, as of 2017 there were around 554,000homeless people in the United Stateson a given night, or 0.17% of the population. Homelessness emerged as a national issue in the 1870s.

The height of a stack of 1,000 one dollar bills measures 4.3 inches. The height of a stack of 1,000,000 one dollar bills measures 4,300 inches or 358 feet – about the height of a 30 to 35 story building. The height of a stack of 100,000,000 (one hundred million) one dollar bills measures 35,851 feet or 6.79 miles.

The states listed below have most progressive building codes, or they are home to the most interesting tiny house projects.

California. California is one of the best states for being a tiny-house enthusiast. …

Colorado. …

Florida. …

Massachusetts. …

Michigan. …

New York. …

Oregon. …

Texas.

Sep 22, 2016

BillyLand.comSelling Land in America
for almost 40 Years

Are you looking for
Cheap Land for Sale
as low as $497/acre?

Or are you looking for
a Cheap Monthly Payment
as low as $72/month?

Be the first to
know about new
Land for Sale!

Get Auction Alerts
in your email inbox.

View Listings on a Map

We have rural Land for Sale in 44 counties throughout Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

We currently have 262 parcels of owner financed land for sale in 44 counties across 16 States. Our inventory consists of some of the cheapest residential quality rural land for sale in America.

Though most of our land is located in Colorado and Oregon, we have dozens of properties available across the nation, from Alaska in the North to Florida in the South.

262 Parcels of land are
on Auction right now.

Next up on the Auction Block is…

California Forest Land 1 Acre, Beautiful Surroundings

Current Bid: $319

This listing ends in: 16 minutes and 7 seconds

Colorado Mountain Land 1.96 Acres - Spectacular Views

Current Bid: $495

This listing ends in: 16 minutes and 38 seconds

Klamath Lake 0.28 Acre Lot Klamath Lake Oregon

Current Bid: $354

This listing ends in: 18 minutes and 22 seconds

Colorado Land 2.53 Acres Of Flat, Open Space to Enjoy

Current Bid: $265

This listing ends in: 19 minutes and 31 seconds

Colorado Ranch land 40 Acres,Level, Mountain Views

Current Bid: $920

This listing ends in: 19 minutes and 56 seconds

View all of our land for saleacross America.

How are we able to offer quality rural land at these low prices? It’s our network of resources that enables us to acquire and develop large tracts of land at a reduced cost. We then pass these cost savings along to our customers. We also obtain individual parcels of land from original owners who have chosen to offer their land for sale. Our cash purchasing power gives us an advantage, and enables us to acquire the land at a reduced cost. We then offer this land for sale to our customers at a huge savings.

Over the years, investments in land have proven to be more stable and reliable than investments in the fluctuating housing market. Do you want to invest in land but think you can’t afford to? At Billyland we allow you to invest with low down-payments and monthly installments that are often times cheaper than the monthly cost of a daily cup of fancy coffee. This creates tremendous ‘Real Estate Leverage’ for the investor. Additionally, owner financing is available and there are no credit checks or references needed to buy land from BillyLand. Our purchase agreements are simple, straightforward, and easy to read. BillyLand really can make it easy and affordable for you to own and invest in land.

Hey Meno
Yeah if only …
but these trillionaires are putting all the money they were wanting to share into suppressing US democracy and blocking the presidents initiatives. Its sad but true.

The worst thing in the world more or less except radical jihadism and a few other things is organized charity. Because as it turns out there is never any oversight and 90 to 99 percent of proceeds go into the pockets of the people who set up these charities, just for that purpose of collecting untaxed money and acquiring fortunes that are untraceable. It is estimated that big portions of African lands are now in virtual possession of sex slave driving “charities”, hundreds of billions, coming from the most innocent, well meaning people through tv ads, they now buy whole third world regions and maker big sex markets in them. Its eerie.

I would also think that very rich people should give some of their money to their countrymen, but like I said, the people who are rich these days really don’t have it in them.

Yeah, Barbarian, and the point has philosophical underpinnings , since the travesty is sinking to the apparently obvious, the Naturalistic Fallacy is being exposed in it’s very foundations, it’s no longer a sustainable fact that the erosion can’t be stopped, while something could/should be done, and Right Now!

More than that! The philosophical practical underpinnings are contrarian.
Therefore the infusion of contrariness, of contradiction, make sense on that level and, primarily on that level.
So among the contestants , which they recognize as a truism: Might is Right still matters the most.

So , its not exactly forgone, the conclusion that incumbents are favored, especially funny man, then the suspense of suspending the status quo, is the truth?

Hey swampy, in any case it has always been a model of narration.
Sorry for becoming murky, but compelled by the inertia brought on by Manifest Destiny. Sounds imperial, like some other, would have been centrist.

Money doesn’t exist Meno, goddamnit.

Oh?

How so?

youtu.be/GXE_n2q08Yw

Say what?

[/quote

I’m hip man, and gotta in form Yea, that it does, indeed, try spending a few weeks homeless, then compare that with a shelter, then come back and ask me again and may be i’ll answer different.

I have.

Emotional appeals. Ffs. It’s never about what is the case with you lefitsts, but what makes me feel righteous.

In fact, I might be taking another tour soon. This capitalist business is no bed of roses.

Maybe I should just call it quits and become a socialist and make it about money. I bet I’d make bundles.

Nah, better to die homeless.

That is right! Right down the alley of economic political justification appealing to people who are driven to understand in terms of the most basic logic, where everything had been reduced to the level of either this or that, whereas in reality thought is only appearent in simultainity.

The thing is, simultainity is a result of not recognizing that variables are at times removed by merely a few degrees of separation.
All else is political hyperbola.
That is why your collusive propositions make good sense.

No, it’s because I think.

I know it’s difficult, but it’s good for your health.

Way out, man! Thanks . I think .

And now the hyperbolically manifested has been stretched far enough to have gotten Your point, possibly understood by anyone ,

Stay healthy and think.

If You think this is a joke, think again!

you’re right.

Jesus Christ, Meno.

Whhhhaaaat Pedddoo?

Jus’ wanna think 'for it tanks!

Never let that happen and we won’t play good and bad cops, no more since chillin that high, so me thinks
~think~ there is a hell of a lot of injustice in the world, honestly do not believe anyone gives a …but its a comfort to let it out. I ain’t mad,
at no one, xcept, well those who wear their heart too open, and that even don’t bother.

After all we all humans .

God point Meno. From the money put into the anti Trump campaign so far which runs in the trillions counting the state resources, the world could have been fed for 50 years. But I predict that its never gonna happen, as without hunger there is no constituency for the trillionaire class.

You fight on their behalf very diligently Meno. You have guilt issues and you shouldn’t. Be a free man!

:sunglasses:

(Hypothetically, just cause dreaming is alright)

Wealth dingos
jealous of gringos
buying up jingles
missing the point like Rip van Winkle
now go and mingle
into real people
burn your newspapers
go on your own caper
find out your fathers Vader later.

Freedom’s just another word, regardless, & until some hurdles overcome assumptions on the contrary. Until then , its just a matter of judging rules oops’ -roles, by the clothes they wear, as if this all started yesterday. Who’s on first, who is on third.

Frankly, anyone can claim misrepresentation, on his face. And the best of the best politicos Nowedays are not jurists but actors.

Tentative verdict: 1 for Trump.

Derzhowitz:

RUSSIA INVESTIGATIONPublished 2 hours ago
The Supreme Court could intervene in attempt to remove Trump from office,
Robert Mueller ‘put his elbow on the scale,’ says Alan DershowitzVideo
Robert Mueller ‘put his elbow on the scale,’ says Alan Dershowitz
President Trump may succeed if he follows through on his attempt to take an impeachment attempt to the Supreme Court, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said on Friday.

“Our non-lawyer president may be closer to the truth than his lawyer critics,” Dershowitz wrote in an op-ed published in The Hill.

Dershowitz, a Fox News contributor, was referring to responses to the president’s tweet that he would take the issue to the nation’s highest court.

Donald J. Trump
:heavy_check_mark:
@realDonaldTrump
The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only…
“I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Trump said in April.

ANDREW MCCARTHY: MUELLER PROBE WAS ALWAYS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT

Dershowitz, in his Friday op-ed, pointed to previous Supreme Court justices who indicated that the Supreme Court should intervene under certain circumstances.

“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result," former Supreme Court Justice Byron White said.

“It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”

Dershowitz also knocked people for criticizing Trump’s willingness to go to raise the prospect of a Supreme Court challenge.

CHAD PERGRAM: DEMOCRATS ‘NOWHERE NEAR’ THE AMOUNT OF VOTES THEY NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT

“No one should criticize President Trump for raising the possibility of Supreme Court review, especially following Bush v. Gore, the case that ended the 2000 election,” he said. “Many of the same academics ridiculed the notion that the justices would enter the political thicket of vote-counting.”

Dershowitz’s op-ed came as media outlets amplified questions surrounding potential impeachment. While some in Congress supported that move, many didn’t.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. – who presides over the chamber responsible for impeachment – has repeatedly pushed back on impeachment and, on Thursday, argued it could ultimately prevent an effective prosecution against the president.

Many have speculated that impeachment could spell trouble for Democrats in 2020, but some progressives, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have argued that certain issues transcended politics.

Meanwhile, congressional Democrats continued pressing the administration for more information surrounding the Russia investigation – coming up against the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas.

Fox around the World

Sam Dorman is a reporter with Fox News. ©2019 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.

Remember: Fox News now is playing defense right now.

Nancy Pelosi says Trump has made an ‘assault’ on U.S. democracy

SEAN ROSSMAN | USA TODAY | 4 minutes ago

   

WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused President Donald Trump of perpetrating an “assault” on the nation’s democracy after he told ABC News that he’d welcome foreign information on his 2020 opponent.

“It’s a very sad thing,” Pelosi told reporters about the president’s words. “That’s an assault on our democracy.”

“What the president said last night shows clearly once again…that he does not know the difference between right and wrong,” Pelosi told reporters. “And that’s probably the nicest thing I can say about him.”

The House speaker said the law prohibits a campaign from accepting an in-kind contribution from a foreign government, which she said includes information. However, Pelosi demurred on a question about whether his remarks pushed her closer to launching an impeachment inquiry.

Earlier, Pelosi said said that Trump was giving Russians a “green light” to meddle in the 2020 election.

“The Russians attacked our elections, and @realDonaldTrump is giving them the green light to do it again,” Pelosi said in a tweet.

The president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos he’d accept dirt on his 2020 opponent from a foreign government and may or may not turn it over to the FBI. Trump argued that such information amounts to “opposition research” widely used by campaigns.

“They have information. I think I’d take it,” Trump said. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI – if I thought there was something wrong.”

Trump also said such political help would not be considered interference.

It wasn’t only Democrats who raised concerns about Trump’s position. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and close White House ally, also pushed back.

”I think it’s a mistake," Graham told reporters on Capitol Hill who quizzed him on the president’s remarks. "I think it’s a mistake of law.”

Trump’s ABC comments: If foreign governments have dirt on 2020 rivals, ‘I think I’d take it,’ Trump says

‘Achomlishments’:Here are all the times Trump’s notes and letters have been photographed

The Russians attacked our elections, and @realDonaldTrump is giving them the green light to do it again. We can’t stand by and just hope for the best. The Senate must join the House in passing #HR1 to #ProtectOurDemocracy! https://t.co/l7UTcFVlDd

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 13, 2019

I meet and talk to “foreign governments” every day. I just met with the Queen of England (U.K.), the Prince of Wales, the P.M. of the United Kingdom, the P.M. of Ireland, the President of France and the President of Poland. We talked about “Everything!” Should I immediately…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2019

The trouble with would be but failed transcendentalists, is not that money ferments absolute power’s; invisible inevidible political ramifications.

That the tech world reduced man into a manipulated underclass, who is prevy to the drip down of Madison ave intellectual design, most of all - concerned of the manageability of a world wide market expansion& without which Capitalism would fail .

This, in spite of harangues to the contrary. The contradiction consists in presupposing an ear toward nationalism and self interest of viable political grassroots, while all it is is a veiled attempt to salvage the sudden loss of an international political dialectic.

That without this, termed in the only understandable language available , that of the language of an imminent damgerous state of ignitable traces of left over cold war McCarthy type paranoias, — predestined as was Marx had pointed to the social middle between self inscribed nationalism and the coming of international palatibility.

That it was a grand act of illusive switch and bait: of that remains little doubt.

After all, the ‘Allies’ had a vastly superior position and power, whereas the others were mere puppets playing the game of power per required manifest, sans the Germans.

It is this transcendental idea that the dispossessed are played into, ingeniously, and necessarily, and it is not Trump, who is merely a clever snake oil salesman, but the clever geneticist Darwin, who was instrumental in setting the stage for this grand deconstruction, in terms of thendleeting present.

It is an event which alas soaked blood since the American then the French revolution, where colonialism was cleverly intuited, as living out it’s hysterical roaring 20’s last dance- unless…

The over passing of the black letter by the slime of procedure unnoticably created this state: and no one seems to really understand it’s contradictory necessity.

Except those who have a lot to loose!

What?

Letter from Trump’s Washington
Forget “No Collusion.” Trump Is Now Pro-Collusion

Donald Trump.
Donald Trump seeks and benefits from division and discord.

There is no such thing as an outrage-free week anymore. On Wednesday, President Trump offered us a particularly stunning example of this new political reality, telling the ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos that he would welcome foreign interference in an election and probably wouldn’t bother to tell the F.B.I. about any outside governments bringing him dirt on his opponent. On Thursday, he doubled down on this position, arguing, in effect, that accepting help from Vladimir Putin would be no different from dining with the Queen of England and the “Prince of Whales,” as he put it in a tweet. Trump, instead of proclaiming “no collusion,” now seemed to be announcing that he is pro-collusion. It didn’t take long for commentators to wonder about his strategy here as much as about his poor spelling: Does the President actually want Congress to impeach him?

One of Trump’s great skills has been to confound his opponents. In the third year of his Presidency, this is as true as it was on his first day in office, and his critics, at home and abroad, have, in the intervening time, become more skilled at reading Trump but hardly less capable or united in agreeing what to do about him. They have received the message that he is a threat to the established order—just about any established order—but resistance has often been more loud than effective, and the divisions over how to take him on seem to widen by the day. He is historically unpopular for a President by many measures, but no matter what he does the allegiance of some forty per cent of the American public has so far remained unwavering.

In Washington, Democrats currently have two opposite and contradictory theories of the case. They cannot both be right. For the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the idea is to beat Trump politically in the 2020 election and, while using Congress’s powers to aggressively investigate him and his Administration, refuse to be drawn into a politicized impeachment proceeding that will not result in his removal from office. “A reluctance to drop the hammer is a healthy thing in a democracy,” Representative Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who agrees with the Speaker’s approach, told reporters on Thursday, when confronted with the President’s latest insult to his own law-enforcement agencies. Many of the nearly two dozen Democrats running for President are also believers in a version of this theory. Though some have endorsed impeachment and all are vociferously anti-Trump, they are focussing their campaigns less on the damage that the President poses to the constitutional order than on wonky, issues-oriented appeals to voters.

Then there is the Biden school. The former Vice-President regularly called Trump an “existential threat” to the country this week, in an Iowa campaign swing. In this, he is more or less in synch with those lawmakers back in Washington who believe that the evidence of Presidential obstruction assembled by the special counsel Robert Mueller warrants immediate impeachment proceedings, regardless of whether they turn out to be politically advantageous for the Democrats. So far, there are about sixty members of the House (including a majority of the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee and a lone Republican, Justin Amash, of Michigan) who are on the record as supporting this course, which leaves a couple hundred more to convince. On the campaign trail, Biden leads early polls with his “Make America America Again” approach, but, if his opponents are right that voters want more than just an anti-Trump crusade, then his theory of the case will be not just wrong but disastrously so.

A fight between Pelosi and her fellow-Democrats is exactly what Trump wants. He seeks division and discord; he benefits from it. It is surely one reason, among many, why the damaging revelations reported by Mueller have had almost no effect on his public standing. If anything, this week’s tiresome outrage cycle is a reminder of Trump’s uniquely successful brand of public crazy. Does anyone remember that he also announced this week that he will soon meet alone with Putin again, despite the uproar over their still mysterious one-on-one summit this past year, in Helsinki? Or that Trump said that he wouldn’t allow the C.I.A. to spy on his “friend,” the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un, after revelations that Kim’s murdered half-brother had been an American informant? Or that Trump spent the first part of the week claiming that he had cut a secret deal with Mexico on illegal immigration, a deal which Mexico denies exists and whose particulars he has yet to produce?

Trump is a political octopus, squirting so much diversionary black ink at us that diversion is the new normal. The new issue of Foreign Affairs out this week declares this historical moment “the self-destruction of American power” and offers a depressing autopsy on the vanishing of U.S. global leadership. But there are too many outrages of the day, of every day, to think about it. Some members of Congress are now publicly confessing that they haven’t had time even to read the Mueller report (and more are saying so in private, as I myself have heard). I doubt that they are stopping to consider the collapse of the liberal international order.

I happened to watch this week’s edition of the Trump show from the shadow of the Brandenburg Gate, in Berlin, which, later this year, will celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the American-midwifed reunification of Germany that followed. I attended a meeting of fervent transatlanticists that was dominated, as conversations invariably are these days, by the question of what to do about Trump. The Germans are no less confounded than the Democrats.

Back in the spring of 2017, when I attended another conference in Berlin sponsored by the same group, Atlantik-Brücke (the “Atlantic Bridge”), a Cold War-era effort at reconciliation between Germany and the United States, the President’s rhetoric was just as incendiary then as it is today, but the Europeans in attendance weren’t yet convinced that he was a serious threat. Trump had just fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey, triggering the hiring of Mueller, and many of the Germans wondered whether impeachment was imminent. Words like “chaos,” “fool,” and “clownish” had been thrown around. “People here think Trump is a laughingstock,” a senior German official told me.

Two years later, they are taking the clown show far more seriously—so much so, in fact, that the soul-searching now is less about how to take Trump’s measure and more about the long-term consequences of an American turn away from Europe, and whether Europeans are prepared to do anything about it.

Trump, of course, has made Europe in general and Germany in particular a target of his animus and has dismissed the value of nato and the European Union. To the transactional President, the long postwar alliance that won the Cold War and (largely) kept the post-Cold War peace is just another bad deal for America, in which Americans protect the West from Russia while the Germans get rich. Presidents before Trump have long complained about European “free riders” (the term was used by no less a Continental favorite than President Obama) and demanded that defense budgets be raised to meet the threshold of two per cent of G.D.P. that nato members had agreed to spend by 2024.

But Trump has elevated those complaints to the level of a new catechism, and no one really thinks this is about a few billion euros. This is about bigger and far more worrisome trends.

In Germany today, Trump’s approval rating is somewhere around ten per cent, and surveys have shown that Putin is more trusted as an international actor than the American President. Trump’s bad name is giving Germans pause about the entire relationship, and that is making it much harder to push through the defense-spending increase that Germany’s leadership says that it supports. This striking fact was only reinforced when Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the handpicked successor to the outgoing German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, spoke to the group on Wednesday.

A.K.K., as she is known, offered a moving story about her own father, a student when he was pressed into German military service in the Second World War, during which he was later taken prisoner by the Americans. This, he told his daughter after the war, had been a “great fortune,” because the Americans not only healed his wounds but taught him about “forgiveness and friendship.” Yet nostalgia for what was can only work so far in the present crisis, and when A.K.K. came to the case for the U.S. alliance in today’s world she sounded defensive and unsure. Twice she reminded the audience that, no matter how much it disliked Trump, at least he was no Putin. Trump may call journalists “enemies of the people,” she pointed out, but there are no “show trials” for them in America, as there are in Putin’s Russia. “We have to see that difference,” she pleaded. “It can’t be levelled.” All of which made for hard listening a few feet away from where the Berlin Wall so long stood. Daily outrages can obscure some truths about the moment, but they cannot undo them, and one of the truths about the Trump era is that it marks a dividing line in America’s role in the world, one that was certainly foreseeable before Trump but is now accelerated by him.

Unlike any of his predecessors, Trump believes that America’s historic “friends, partners, and allies” are the problem, not the answer, as Sigmar Gabriel, the former German Foreign Minister, put it to me in our interview at the conference. To Trump, Gabriel said, “Europe now seems to be a conspiracy against American interests.” Depending on the day, Trump’s version can sound a lot like he considers the U.S. military little more than a mercenary force whose European employers have refused to pay the bills.

As if to prove the point, Trump was meeting in Washington that same day with the Polish President, Andrzej Duda, a like-minded nationalist hard-liner who has become a controversial figure in Europe for his attacks on the independent judiciary and media. Unlike leaders in larger European nations like Germany that have pushed back on Trump, Duda has aggressively wooed the American President as a counterbalance to Russia next door, even promising to build a “Fort Trump” if he would agree to permanently base U.S. troops there. Trump told reporters that he signed an agreement to send a thousand troops from Germany to Poland in what he characterized as an explicitly punitive measure: “Germany is not living up to what they are supposed to be doing with respect to nato, and Poland is,” he said to Duda. “I have to congratulate you. Thank you very much.”

As snarky Trump comments go, it understandably rated little mention amid the other news. But the vision of an America whose foreign policy is driven by personal pique, whose troops can be rented out by the highest, most obsequious bidder, is a searing one. In a week of outrages, this was far from the worst, but in some ways it ranks among the most consequential. The President’s supporters often tell those who are alarmed about his words to skip the tweets and focus on the substance of his Administration’s policies. But they are wrong. Trump is telling us exactly what he is going to do—and then he is doing it.

Satire from The Borowitz Report
Kellyanne Conway to Leave White House Immediately and Begin New Job at Kremlin

Andy BorowitzJune 14, 2019

Naomi FryJune 14, 2019
© Condé Nast 2019
Become a New Yorker subscriber, and get a free tote.

Very brief analysis:

It is true that the US is looking world leadership, and Trump Is Right on! Unfortunately.

And it is economic, in the new information age, everyone wants the piece if the pie, and it is unreasonable to assume the U.S. can keep up with nations, such as the Oriental counntries , which have very low standards of wages, producing at less then half the cost: to compete with.

The Chinese have been international ists from way back, they emigrate vast numbers of populations for a very long time. The politocal clothes they are wearing of pseudo communism, do not exclude international competitive methods of short cuts, for getting and forgetting traditional and legal means of acquiring them, hard to get objects of trade, including the procurement of expensively developed military items.

The fact that international trade is a pre-requisite to the sustenance of Capital, and the way it’s handled ‘Capitalism’; all the machinations about world affairs sans the dialectic is mere sideshow.

The fact may be very well justified that communism was a.constructed buffer between Nationalism and Internationalism in the first place.

Trumpism is merely an echo of a pent up international investiture, and forget any big changes any time soon.

The only viability comes from dilution and inflation, giving the billionaires club so much more extension into mainland social networking among those who have had tremendous luck through huge lotteries and instant virtual landings .

I think it would be an act of genius to inact a profitable public works on a grand scale, at this mow point of divided public morale.

A giant push for manufacture and distribution of US made electric cars, while taxing has -for 'charitable purposes to finance it, and liquor and narcotics, could make such a move feasable, while politically advantageous.

The presupposed resistance may be disarmed by FDR tactics of arts’ endowments.

Just Sayin’.