Other "You can't fool all of the people all the time."
| YouGov |
Moves that the enemies and adversaries of the US will enthusiastically applaud
Trump is at odds with his own administration—and with reality
Trump's current naval fixation
| Trading Economics |
| Read on Quora |
No, the ayatollahs would only be confident they could defeat the US if they were stupid. They are confident they only need to avoid defeat. As simple as that, but beyond the level of understanding of a guy who suffers from hubris syndrome and paranoid narcissism.
Em 2018, por alturas deste post, o Dr. Rui Rio era líder do PS-D e já então dificilmente distinguível de um socialista encartado.
_________
A este propósito é indispensável não fazer confusões.
Por um lado, temos os anticapitalistas, como o Dr. Rio, que, por natureza, é um pró-socialista, entre outras coisas possíveis, mas improváveis dado o seu passado.
Por outro lado, temos os adeptos cépticos do capitalismo, como este vosso escriba, que veem o capitalismo como o pior dos sistemas económicos e sociais, com excepção de todos os outros, principalmente se esses outros forem sistemas sem propriedade privada e sem um mercado livre e se não tiverem por companhia um Estado Democrático e de Direito.
«In a court filing earlier this month, a government lawyer did something radical: He laid out the truth in plain English.
The surprise was not just the honesty from a chronically dishonest administration but also the substance: The Trump administration admitted that it had withheld federal money in retaliation against its political rivals. The disclosure, first reported by The New York Times on Friday, is part of a lawsuit from a group of researchers in California whose grants were canceled. In lieu of turning over documents to the plaintiffs in discovery, an Energy Department attorney acknowledged in a filing that decisions about which grants might be terminated had been “based solely” on a goal of political retribution. “With one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing Senators (‘Blue State’ grants),” the filing stated, contradicting previous public statements by officials.
This is admission by analysis. All politicians pander, but the best of them do it with some finesse. Vance, who struggles through the most basic photo ops, is not one of the best; his two successful elections are both testaments to Trump’s political muscle. In 2022, when he was a U.S. Senate candidate, I included Vance in a round-up of very intelligent Republicans who were clumsily pretending to be fools for electoral purposes. Vance seems to have doubled down on the strategy since then, but each new incident just offers more evidence of his dripping disdain for voters’ intelligence.
This may not be the wisest political strategy, H. L. Mencken notwithstanding. Vance’s approval ratings have been underwater for more than a year, and the Never Trump pollster Sarah Longwell recently conducted a focus group with Trump voters and found that Vance has left them cold. Either way, Vance’s performance plays as tragicomedy: comic because he’s so bad at it, but tragic because of who Vance was not that long ago. Much has been made of his critique of Trump in his 2016 Atlantic essay, and although his flip-flop on the president is astonishing, he has also reversed himself on a more fundamental view of politics.
In that essay, he criticized the demagogic tendency to condescend to people in so-called flyover country, where he grew up—to view them as yokels who could be easily manipulated with simplistic talking points and grievance plays. The harms that Trump identified, Vance wrote, “demand serious thought and measured action—from governments, yes, but also from community leaders and individuals.” Trump, he argued, was cynically co-opting those harms for his own gain and doing Americans a disservice. That Vance was right; this Vance doesn’t seem to care.»
J. D. Vance Isn’t a Fool. Why Does He Act Like One?, David A. Graham, The Atlantic
| If he knows that these doctrines are not true, he is a demagogue; if he believes his own lies, he is an idiot. |
So why even deliver it? The speech was a sign of desperation. Trump spoke now not only to distract from his sputtering Iran war and its effects on the economy, but also because his attempts to concretely interfere with the 2026 election thus far have almost all failed. As his opportunities to change the rules of the game before November slip away from him, the president is falling back on one of the few tools he has left: attempting to sow chaos and doubt among Americans.»
Trump’s Plan for November Is Failing, The Atlantic
Faz um tempo zurzi o patriotismo tudológico a cavalo da ignorância pesporrente do Dr. Tavares, que então investiu contra «os holandeses, os novos-ricos da Europa, actuando como gauleiters da Alemanha» tentando diminuir a Holanda para enaltecer o Portugal dos Pequeninos. Lembrei-me desse episódio ao cruzar-me com mais um exemplo de realizações notáveis dos holandeses, a acrescentar aos vários que então citei.
Update to this post
«A convicted Jan. 6 rioter who later said that he regretted his participation in the U.S. Capitol attack has been hired by the Trump administration to work inside a Pentagon office that manages highly classified military operations, according to four people familiar with the matter.
The appointment of Elias Irizarry, who was 19 at the time of the riot in 2021, to a post in the Defense Department’s Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict office has raised alarm internally among staff who question how anyone convicted in the assault on American democracy could be trusted for such a sensitive role in the U.S. government, these people said. All spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing a fear of retaliation.» Washington Post
At first glance, it seems strange that the Trump Administration would appoint someone convicted of breaking into the Capitol to work in counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of Defense. However, appointing such a person to combat terrorism makes as much sense as hiring a hacker to combat cyber intrusion, which is a normal procedure in the computer industry.
«President Trump lashed out at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel's escalation in Lebanon in an expletive-laden call ("You're fucking crazy") on Monday, two U.S. officials and a third source briefed on the call told Axios.» Axios
It may also seem strange that Mr. Trump insulted Mr. Netanyahu, but the truth is that his democrat predecessor, Roosevelt, once said of the dictator Somoza, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."
Unfortunately, not everyone, even among his devotees, understands these subtleties, and that's why President Trump's net approval rating continues to fall.
«Donald Trump’s reputation and political career were built on his dealmaking prowess, yet the president keeps demonstrating that he is a terrible negotiator.
Repeatedly over the past nine years, Trump has gotten rolled by counterparts during high-stakes exchanges. North Korea, Russia, Russia again, China, and China again have gotten the better of the United States. Trump has had to slink back to Washington without much to show except empty talk about friendship with whatever dictator has just run circles around him. He’s had some success in brokering agreements when acting as a third party (though not nearly as much as he pretends) but much less luck when his own government is a participant. The one glaring exception came when he was effectively negotiating with himself, getting his own administration to set up a $1.8 billion slush fund for his political allies.
The newest example of Trump’s artlessness is Iran. Let’s review the past few days: Trump posted on Saturday that he was close to striking a deal with Tehran that would end the war he started earlier this year and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. As the outlines of the agreement began to emerge, it looked both incomplete and bad: Trump had postponed discussing the hardest issues—matters, such as nuclear weapons, that led him to go to war—in exchange for opening the strait, which was open before Trump started the war. Hawkish Trump allies promptly criticized the deal, and despite histrionic pushback from Trump aides, the president had begun backing off claims of an imminent agreement by Sunday. “If I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama,” he posted. “Our deal is the exact opposite, but nobody has seen it, or knows what it is. It isn’t even fully negotiated yet.” Yesterday, in a sign that a deal might not be near at all, the U.S. military conducted what it called “self-defense strikes” against Iranian targets—directly contradicting the administration’s previous claims about having wiped out any threats to the United States in Iran.»
David A. Graham, The Atlantic
«If Operation Epic Fury has truly ended, following the announcement of a two-week ceasefire on April 7th, it will have lasted nearly as long as Operation Desert Storm, the campaign to expel Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991. A comparison of the two wars shows how much America has changed.
Back then, President George H.W. Bush sought approval from Congress and the UN Security Council before opening fire. This time round, Donald Trump did not bother with such formalities. Bush, who died in 2018, patiently persuaded 41 other countries to join America’s military coalition. Mr Trump started the war with one ally, Israel. He did not consult other allies, but then demanded they help when things got hard, and denounced them as “COWARDS” when they proved reluctant.
The elder Bush laid out a clear, limited objective: reversing one country’s seizure of another. Mr Trump offered a shifting array of goals, from destroying Iran’s missiles and nuclear programme to regime change.
Bush, who did not have access to social media, chose his words carefully. His terse response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was “This will not stand.” Mr Trump has been more verbose and less measured. “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah,” he posted on Truth Social on April 5th.
The 41st president declared victory only after he had won, and in his victory address praised American soldiers and allies—but not himself. Mr Trump declared victory early and often. “We won. In the first hour it was over,” he boasted on March 11th. Despite being over in the first hour, it lasted nearly six more weeks, snuffed out hundreds of lives and made humanity measurably poorer.
On the morning of April 7th Mr Trump vowed to wipe out Iranian civilisation if the regime did not meet his terms. For ten and a half hours, the world wondered how seriously to take this astounding threat. Then he backed down, citing progress in negotiations. The next day he sounded cheerful. “This could be the Golden Age of the Middle East!!!” he posted on Truth Social, adding: “Big money will be made.”
The liberation of Kuwait from the Middle East’s most torture-happy despot marked a high point of American power—a unipolar moment after the end of the cold war. It also pushed Bush’s approval rating at home to nearly 90%. Democrats as well as Republicans applauded. Mr Trump’s war has been less well-received.»
Donald Trump’s ceasefire shows how America has changed
__________________
This text is part of an article that was published on April 9th, and since then, Mr. Trump has proclaimed victory several times, threatened to annihilate Iran, and announced imminent agreements. There is a chasm between the US with a president like George H.W. Bush and the US with a cheerleader like Donald Trump.
Other "You can't fool all of the people all the time."
| YouGov |
Inflation, employment, foreign policy, immigration, or crime - take your pick.
Men or women, young or old, white or black, illiterate or with a doctorate - take your pick.
Continuação daqui.
... a invasão da Ucrânia a que chamou pudicamente "operação especial", que era para durar uma semana e já vai, se não estou enganado, em 218 semanas...
«Russia's internal expectations for the war were remarkably short. Documents found inside Russian tanks described how the "special military operation" would conclude in just ten days. Ukraine also captured "flagship" tanks — the kind used in parades — along with military parade uniforms, suggesting that Russia expected to stage a victory parade in Kyiv after a swift campaign. Wikipedia
The broader picture painted by the evidence is even more striking. After the invasion began, Ukrainian and Western analysts assessed that Putin seemed to have believed Russian forces would be capable of seizing Kyiv within days, leading to the conclusion that "taking Kyiv in three days" had been the original goal. This narrative was reinforced by statements from Aleksandr Lukashenko and Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of Russian state broadcaster RT. The Security Service of Ukraine also released a video showing a captured Russian soldier claiming his unit had been sent into Ukraine with food supplies for only three days. Wikipedia
Russia's invasion plan involved defeating Ukraine within ten days and capturing or killing its government, followed by "mopping up" operations, establishing filtration camps, setting up occupation regimes, and eventually annexing territory. Wikipedia
Three days after the invasion began, the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti mistakenly published a pre-written article called "Russia's Coming and the New World," prepared in anticipation of a quick Russian victory, which announced that "Ukraine had returned to Russia." Wikipedia
Of course, none of this came to pass. By April 2022, the invasion's initial goal of a rapid victory via decapitation had failed, with Ukraine pushing back the northern arm of the invasion and preventing the capture of Kyiv. The war has now dragged on for over three years, becoming the largest conflict in Europe since World War II. Wikipedia»
Resposta do Claude Sonnet 4.6. da Anthropic à pergunta «When Russia invaded Ukraine, what was the Russian government's prediction for the duration of the so-called "special operation"?»
Já várias vezes evoquei (aqui, acolá e acoli, por exemplo) o Zugzwang, do alemão zug (jogada) e zwang (compulsão), que é a situação no xadrez em que, em consequência das jogadas anteriores, um jogador é obrigado a fazer a jogada seguinte da qual sairá em pior situação.
Volto a fazê-lo desta vez para caracterizar a situação em que se colocaram no tabuleiro internacional os compadres Vladimir Putin e Donald Trump, o primeiro com a invasão da Ucrânia a que chamou pudicamente "operação especial", que era para durar uma semana e já vai, se não estou enganado, em 218 semanas, e o segundo com o Great and Beautiful Bombardment (GBB) dos aiotolás, que era para durar o que Bibi achasse necessário, e já vai em 6 semanas e vários anúncios de Total and Complete Victory.
Quanto a Vladimir Putin, as coisas vão de mal a pior e, segundo um ex-alto funcionário do governo russo, enfrenta uma situação de perfeito Zugzwang, situação que, com os mesmos critérios, tomo a liberdade de atribuir a Donald Trump e, já agora, ao seu ajudante, o secretário de Estado da Guerra, Pete Hegseth.
É assim que, não sem algum Schadenfreude, concedo o máximo de cinco Zugzwänge (plural de Zugzwang) ao primeiro e quatro ao segundo (o quinto poderá ser atribuído em breve). A Pete Hegseth não atribuo nenhum - é apenas um secretário.