[taxicabjesus]

> Nah, Trump and his crew are useful idiots when it comes to Russia;

Since Eisenhower, which presidents have not been 'useful idiots'? I'd nominate Kennedy and Carter. Someone I respect said that Nixon hated the globalists, but he escalated the war in Vietnam (only ending it after his re-election), and I wasn't alive then so I don't know.

In recent history, Clinton continued G.H.W. Bush's free trade agenda. GW Bush couldn't even read a teleprompter. Obama was good at reading the teleprompter, but didn't have a good understanding of any of the problems he was supposedly addressing.

I think the real useful idiots are those employed by the traditional news media: CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. They lived in a little bubble, thinking that people really wanted four more years of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama status quo.

[trashtoss]

You have "interesting" and, to be polite, "idiosyncratic" ideas and framing to the point that the expected cost/benefit (for me) of having a real discussion doesn't seem favorable.

Instead, I would offer you some friendly advice: since you have such strong views, I encourage you to write down your political predictions (what you think the new admin will do; what you think will happen as a result; how you think other parties will react, and how those reactions will play out...whatever you think is valuable).

File these predictions away and revisit them at some future date. Keep score!

What did you get right? What did you get wrong? When you get things right, were you right for the reasons you expected to be right, or did you get lucky?

When you get things wrong, was it because you had bad information? Faulty reasoning? Unexpected left-field development not reasonably foreseeable?

Doing this exercise will only serve to sharpen your mind and your understanding!

[ovidnis]

If you really felt like the possibility of a 'real' discussion was nil, just don't post. taxicabjesus made valid points, and you just condescendingly insult him. For what purpose?