Where can one access the full show? I feel kind of ripped off. I can only afford to subscribe to a few Substack contributors. Why would I pay for content that I can see for free on You Tube?
Where can one access the full show? I feel kind of ripped off. I can only afford to subscribe to a few Substack contributors. Why would I pay for content that I can see for free on You Tube?
It would be nice if we could access the extra content the day of the show . Still waiting for the extra content of the last show Obamas war on terror led to Trump
The real fun was before May 2009, which was when the Teabaggers figured out why so many folks were giggling when they announced they were "Teabagging" and that they were "Teabaggers." We had over two months of any ideologically-mixed online forum turning into the scene in the South Park movie when the whole UN is laughing when the Canadian ambassador is saying "aboot."
I don't doubt that the issues described with the War on Terror had their impact. However, presuming this fully explains Trump and nativism and America First type policy goals is missing the point. Most of the people I meet locally or who I met at Trumpy events didn't cite the wars as an issue. It was a big deal for me because I wanted to stop the dying of people I knew and loved. Most others weren't as interested; I suppose that makes me a 'special interest'.
Anyway, the big issue I noted can be summed up simply that they were tired of being held in contempt by the government. Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon would have spoken directly to them; the elites of today barely acknowledge their existence, which feels like the cut direct, or actively disparage them as Obama, Biden and their spokespeople do. "Bitter clingers" and such. The conclusion was "fuck Washington and the media" and Trump was tailor made for the job. It's no more complicated than that. To defuse the whole thing, all someone would have to do is talk to people at their level, as say, Clinton or Reagan might have. Probably would only have to modify the most contemptuous policies and even then in a very window dressing kind of way. Voila, division mitigated.
I know the political reasons why this is not done, particularly on the Democratic side where hostility to the flyover country is a religious thing, but really it would be that simple.
In addition to Spencer’s book you might also want to check out Scott Horton’s “Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism” <https://www.amazon.com/dp/1733647341/>
I am a subscriber, is it possible to get a complete show? Even the email you send is fractured and often starts with an interview in progress? Or as Katie puts it the rest of the interview
Adding my voice to those queries concerning the full interview/show. Implicit in Katie's pitch is that the entire interview is available to subscribers immediately, that does not seem to be the case. Explanation?
i love the show guys! i would love though to hear something good you think the dems/reps have done to counterbalance the dems/reps suck segment. just read hate inc Matt and i wanna hear you achieve some balance across good and bad news not just the bad of both parties ❤️
Also, once again, why do we presume that these people on corporate boards give two shits about war and peace? Northop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, CACI, General Dynamics - most of their income has to do with long term procurements that are actually negatively impacted by the redirection of funds to war. A couple of them have vibrant FSR deals (field service representative) - GD is one of these - but mostly this doesn't make them anywhere near as much money as providing bent metal products like armored vehicles etc.
The large scale procurement programs have generally been negatively impacted by the last 20 years' wars. For many years, the money was redirected from such programs to ONS in theater and GWOT dollars, which amounted to the money being pissed away on buying servers and COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software like MSFT products. The real profiteers have been the smalls, who both have notches written into just about every contract vehicle and can make some serious money sending someone in harm's way. This makes logical sense if you think about it. Imagine being from the DC area and working for Lockheed Martin in an office. Am I going to deploy? Probably not. But someone from Joe Blow Integration, Inc. based around some Army base, say Killeen, TX near Fort Hood, might, because at their scale there is both money to be made and the kind of people they will hire will be mostly ex-military who have little resistance to deploying.
Anyway Condi Rice and the others you mention are so far away from these decisions and the connection between war and them making $$$ is not as direct as you are implying that it kind of blows a hole below the waterline in the argument.
I joined substack . Where can I find the Monday morning Sunday news show?
Where can one access the full show? I feel kind of ripped off. I can only afford to subscribe to a few Substack contributors. Why would I pay for content that I can see for free on You Tube?
Where can one access the full show? I feel kind of ripped off. I can only afford to subscribe to a few Substack contributors. Why would I pay for content that I can see for free on You Tube?
It would be nice if we could access the extra content the day of the show . Still waiting for the extra content of the last show Obamas war on terror led to Trump
The real fun was before May 2009, which was when the Teabaggers figured out why so many folks were giggling when they announced they were "Teabagging" and that they were "Teabaggers." We had over two months of any ideologically-mixed online forum turning into the scene in the South Park movie when the whole UN is laughing when the Canadian ambassador is saying "aboot."
I don't doubt that the issues described with the War on Terror had their impact. However, presuming this fully explains Trump and nativism and America First type policy goals is missing the point. Most of the people I meet locally or who I met at Trumpy events didn't cite the wars as an issue. It was a big deal for me because I wanted to stop the dying of people I knew and loved. Most others weren't as interested; I suppose that makes me a 'special interest'.
Anyway, the big issue I noted can be summed up simply that they were tired of being held in contempt by the government. Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon would have spoken directly to them; the elites of today barely acknowledge their existence, which feels like the cut direct, or actively disparage them as Obama, Biden and their spokespeople do. "Bitter clingers" and such. The conclusion was "fuck Washington and the media" and Trump was tailor made for the job. It's no more complicated than that. To defuse the whole thing, all someone would have to do is talk to people at their level, as say, Clinton or Reagan might have. Probably would only have to modify the most contemptuous policies and even then in a very window dressing kind of way. Voila, division mitigated.
I know the political reasons why this is not done, particularly on the Democratic side where hostility to the flyover country is a religious thing, but really it would be that simple.
In addition to Spencer’s book you might also want to check out Scott Horton’s “Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism” <https://www.amazon.com/dp/1733647341/>
I am a subscriber, is it possible to get a complete show? Even the email you send is fractured and often starts with an interview in progress? Or as Katie puts it the rest of the interview
Adding my voice to those queries concerning the full interview/show. Implicit in Katie's pitch is that the entire interview is available to subscribers immediately, that does not seem to be the case. Explanation?
i love the show guys! i would love though to hear something good you think the dems/reps have done to counterbalance the dems/reps suck segment. just read hate inc Matt and i wanna hear you achieve some balance across good and bad news not just the bad of both parties ❤️
So, uh, did Jo Christmas (folks who know about whom I'm talking) come up at all in the extended interview with Ackerman?
Domestic racism will be downplayed, if not ignored? Really? In 2021 America? Really?
Also, once again, why do we presume that these people on corporate boards give two shits about war and peace? Northop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, CACI, General Dynamics - most of their income has to do with long term procurements that are actually negatively impacted by the redirection of funds to war. A couple of them have vibrant FSR deals (field service representative) - GD is one of these - but mostly this doesn't make them anywhere near as much money as providing bent metal products like armored vehicles etc.
The large scale procurement programs have generally been negatively impacted by the last 20 years' wars. For many years, the money was redirected from such programs to ONS in theater and GWOT dollars, which amounted to the money being pissed away on buying servers and COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software like MSFT products. The real profiteers have been the smalls, who both have notches written into just about every contract vehicle and can make some serious money sending someone in harm's way. This makes logical sense if you think about it. Imagine being from the DC area and working for Lockheed Martin in an office. Am I going to deploy? Probably not. But someone from Joe Blow Integration, Inc. based around some Army base, say Killeen, TX near Fort Hood, might, because at their scale there is both money to be made and the kind of people they will hire will be mostly ex-military who have little resistance to deploying.
Anyway Condi Rice and the others you mention are so far away from these decisions and the connection between war and them making $$$ is not as direct as you are implying that it kind of blows a hole below the waterline in the argument.
Easily three times as many Americans died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush and Trump combined.