The Glory.

I would have voted for him if I was British just because he smokes :) if he keeps that rhetoric up I’ll have his babies… and I don’t have to be British to do that :)

But does no REALLY mean no? Didn’t Trump say it himself, women love it when you grab them by the pussy or something similar?

I have missed Saylor.

The only questions left to ask are… 1) is he in better condition than his predecessor? 2) is he better than the alternative presented at the last election. If the answer to those questions are yes, which I am sure anyone willing to give an honest appraisal and answer will agree, then the process problem is US politics… in which case, use your 2nd and fix it.

Correction: 2.1 quadrillion units :)

I must admit to being heavily influenced by Jason Lowery’s argument that without hard power to back the soft powers of rationality, due process, evidence, law, etc, one becomes roadkill to any enemy power that is willing to ignore the soft norms. Currently it seems like the US is flexing it’s might to remind the world that if you don’t play by the rules (American rules sure, but still rules) then the US will without a doubt use that hard power to either punish or remove those that flaunt them. The US seems to understand that when an opportunity arises to demonstrate resolve and commitment, one should take it. Where the difference between the opponents is not sufficient to ensure swift resolution with minimal relative casualties (i.e. Russia or China) a containment approach would be less undesirable than rolling the dice and putting too much at risk. Where the outcome is more predictable, i.e. Iran and Venezuela, strike hard and fast with as much precision as can be mustered against the root of the problem. Make smaller adversaries think twice about getting involved in big boy disagreements and then focus on negotiations with the biggers to achieve I must admit to being heavily influenced by Jason Lowery’s argument that without hard power to back the soft powers of rationality, due process, evidence, law, etc, one becomes roadkill to any enemy power that is willing to ignore the soft norms. Currently it seems like the US is flexing it’s might to remind the world that if you don’t play by the rules (American rules sure, but still rules) then the US will without a doubt use that hard power to either punish or remove those that flaunt them. The US seems to understand that when an opportunity arises to demonstrate resolve and commitment, one should take it. Where the difference between the opponents is not sufficient to ensure swift resolution with minimal relative casualties (i.e. Russia or China) a containment approach would be less undesirable than rolling the dice and putting too much at risk. Where the outcome is more predictable, i.e. Iran and Venezuela, strike hard and fast with as much precision as can be mustered against the root of the problem. Make smaller adversaries think twice about getting involved in big boy disagreements and then focus on negotiations with the biggers to achieve Rational Coexistence.