Those Presidential Debates

Closing Thought–17Dec19

These are kinda like the mainstay of campaign since god knows when….I am not talking about the beauty contest of candidates taking swipes at each other trying to get the headlines the next day…I am talking about the nominees going head to head in front of the American people.

Nixon lost his support in 1960 when he was shown sweating while debating JFK…and it has been a major campaign stop every since……well maybe not so much in 2020….

Seems on Friday, 13Dec19, that Trump may not keep with the tradition of history…he may not debate his Dem opponent…

Wondering how the general election debates between President Trump and the Democratic nominee will go down? We may never find out. Two sources said to be familiar with Trump’s discussions on the matter tells the New York Times the president is mulling not showing up for any such showdowns—not because he’s intimidated by any of the current roster of contenders, but because he doesn’t trust the nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates, which sponsors the events, and because he’s wary of who the chosen moderators will be. Newsweek notes Trump’s debate history has been “checkered, at best,” though in a tweet from this July he bragged he’d won “EVERY debate,” in both the primaries and in the three he had with Hillary Clinton.

The magazine notes polls showed Clinton as the winner of those three, though Trump was correct in suspecting he’d had a technical issue with his microphone in one of those debates (there’d been a volume problem). As for his skepticism on moderators, Business Insider recalls a spar Trump had with moderator Megyn Kelly in a GOP primary debate in August 2015, in which Kelly asked him about his past disparaging remarks on women; that spat reportedly led him to boycott a January 2016 debate on Fox. Not everyone’s so sure Trump won’t show the next time around, though. “Not doing any would not be strategically smart,” Clinton adviser Philippe Reines tells the Times. Daily Beast writer Molly Jong-Fast thinks Trump won’t be able to resist. “I have a feeling that when confronted with the chance for attention the temptation will be too great,” she tweeted

Is he that “thin skinned”?

But wait….as usual Trump has waffled, something he does with all ease these days…..

On Monday, Trump himself clarified his position: He says he wants to debate, but not through the non-profit organization that has traditionally organized the forums, reports the Hill. In a series of tweets, Trump accused the Commission on Presidential Debates of being “stacked with Trump Haters” and biased against him. “As President, the debates are up to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission,” Trump wrote. “I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!”

He added, however, that he would “very much look forward” to debating the Democratic nominee. In response to the criticism, the commission denied Trump’s accusation of bias and said its record was “one of fairness, balance, and non-partisanship,” per Politico. One of Trump’s specific beefs with the group is that his microphone wasn’t working properly during his first debate with Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. The commission later acknowledged that “there were issues regarding Donald Trump’s audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall,” but Trump on Monday accused the group of “deliberately modulating” his microphone.

The CPD is a non-partisan group that conducts the debates…..

Sorry but Trump is looking like a coward here.  He is making excuses for him not to appear.  The easiest way for a coward to hide.

I hope he comes to his senses and debates his opponent…the American people deserve to see and hear their president and his challenger.

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Could Germany Have Won World War Two–Part 1?

When I was in college I took many history courses and one of them the professor would have us students use our brains and come up with a ‘what if’…….

I recently finished that 38 part series on the history of the US….I like series where it takes a little research and hard work to make them…..I found another but this one is about World War 2 and the possibility that the Nazis could have won…if only…..

I am sure that there will be those that will take exception to this series….but remember it is not my research but that of other people…I am just the messenger……I offer it up as a source for discussion….I may or may not endorse the conclusions….

Part 1–Germany could have won WW2 without fighting the Western Allies…..

the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, which cost the lives of an estimated 50-60 million people and was the most terrible war in world history. We all know how the war turned out—with an overwhelming Soviet-Western Allied victory over Nazi Germany ending with the destruction and dismemberment of Germany herself and the death by starvation of millions of her citizens. Given the way the events of the war played out, there was no other foreseeable outcome other than her defeat. But as most historians are aware, German defeat in the war would have been far from inevitable had Nazi leader Adolf Hitler refrained from making certain critical mistakes.

This series of articles represents an attempt to summarize the top mistakes and omissions Germany made that cost it victory in this greatest and most terrible of all wars in human history. Of course, the best way for Germany to have won World War II was for it to have avoided fighting Britain, France, and the United States of America altogether. Germany had the military potential to defeat France and likely force Britain to make peace, but with a Navy less than one-sixth the size of Britain’s, it had no means to even attack U.S. territory, let alone defeat it. Here are some actions that Germany might have taken to achieve their territorial objectives without having to fight the Western Powers of Britain, France and the United States of America:

As I stated before….this is offered up as a source for discussion….please let your thoughts be known….but I have written about the Nazi voter…….

I shall be posting each part as they are available……

Watch This Blog!

I Read. I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

A New Arms Race

Over the Summer Trump decided in his wisdom to pull out of a decades old treaty limiting missiles, the INF Treaty…..and now after the Russia tested a new missile and now the US felt obligated to do the same….

The Pentagon on Thursday flight-tested a missile that had been banned under a treaty that the United States and Russia abandoned last summer, the AP reports. Some US arms control advocates said the test risks an unnecessary arms race with Moscow. The prototype missile was configured to be armed with a non-nuclear warhead. The Pentagon declined to disclose specifics beyond saying thew missile was launched from a “static launch stand” at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and landed in the open ocean. The Defense Department said the ballistic missile flew more than 500 miles. The test comes amid growing uncertainty about the future of arms control. The last remaining treaty limitation on US and Russian nuclear weapons—the New Start treaty of 2010—is scheduled to expire in February 2021. That treaty can be extended for as long as five years without requiring a renegotiation of its main terms. The Trump administration has indicated little interest in doing so.

The Pentagon declined to reveal the maximum range of the missile tested. Last spring, when US officials disclosed the testing plan, they said it would be roughly 1,860 miles to 2,480 miles. That is sufficient to reach potential targets in parts of China from a base on Guam, for example. The Pentagon has made no basing decisions and has suggested that it will take at least a few years before such a missile would be ready for deployment. Under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty, land-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range between 310 miles and 3,417 miles were prohibited. The Trump administration chose to abandon the INF treaty, saying that while it had adhered to the treaty’s limitations, Russia had violated it by deploying a noncompliant cruise missile aimed at US allies in Europe. Shortly after exiting the treaty in August, the Pentagon flight-tested an INF-range cruise missile.

Oh crap!

Here we go again!

How much will this cost the American taxpayer?

Arms experts see the danger of this ill-advised policy…..

Arms experts warned of negative global implications after the Pentagon on Thursday test-launched a second missile that would have been banned under a Cold War-era treaty that U.S. President Donald Trump ditched in early August.

Trump ignored concerns about the impacts on global security and formally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty after suspending U.S. obligations under the deal in February and giving Russian President Vladimir Putin six months to destroy weapons that the U.S. government and NATO deemed noncompliant with the bilateral agreement. The deal outlawed land-launched missiles with a range of 500–5,500 kilometers or about 310–3,400 miles.

The drama continues…..

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

The US And The Kurds

The Kurds?  Where have I heard that before?

When Trump ordered US troops out of Northern Syria we all saw the pics of Kurds throwing rocks and garbage at the troops as they rolled out of Syria and into Iraq.

Of course the propaganda arm of the Pentagon, the mainstream media, immediately started telling their viewers how important the Kurds are to our overall plan for the Middle East (to date I still have NO idea what that plan could be).

For now that story is not necessary for the MSM for they have the impeachment hearings and that is ratings gold.

But the military talks to the op-ed pages to push the Kurds saga for them….

Much of the outrage and frustration for the U.S. withdrawal from Syria focused on America’s long-standing relationship with the Kurds, without differentiating between Kurdish groups. While America’s relations with Syria’s Kurds are in flux, as a matter of foreign policy, America should increase its support for the Kurds of Iraq, a clear and reliable long-term partner in this historically contested region.

The Kurds, an ethnic group living on the borderlands between Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria, have figured prominently in American strategy in the Middle East for three decades. The 1990 Gulf war focused mainly on rolling back Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. It also led America to impose a no-fly zone on oil-rich northern Iraq. This drove the Kurds to set up their own autonomous government structure, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). This “regional framework” grew stronger following America’s invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. As a second order effect, the KRG became the most stable, reliable, and U.S.-friendly part of the country.

This op-ed made the case on why the US should retain the Kurds as our fist in the war against any expansionism into the region….but in doing so is there a law being trashed?


The fast-moving events in Syria and Turkey have made for head-spinning headlines and sometimes personal anguish for many U.S. soldiers who have fought in that region. The outpouring of emotion at the plight of the Syrian Democratic Forces’ People Protection Units (YPG), a primarily Kurdish militia, has ignited nationwide debate as to the U.S. governments’ loyalty to allies. Soldiers – indeed, officers, have openly questioned the motives of the commander in chief (CINC) and disparaged his order to withdraw up to 1,000 troops from areas of direct conflict in northeastern Syria.

This is a saga into the mechanics of the M-IC….decide on a conclusion then build a paper round that conclusion….

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”