In the closing statements, I said 'even if Trump is the threat to Trump'--whereas I had meant (and should have said) 'even if Trump is the threat to democracy'.
Note: There are various other slips of the tongue in this video, representative of accepted dialectical mispronouncements common to the vernacular, including many which I tried to annotate in the transcript for the subtitles, the latter of which I could not include, because ther glitches and poor design of the editing platform are so severe as to drive one to extreme distractions--and so for my mental health, I gave up. IN the future, I may use Clip Champ and upload my videos rather than making them here at SUBstandardSTACK. LOL.
Thoughtful essay. You called out all sides, incl industrialized bations who have a daddy complex, bringing waR to poor countries whenever they feel like it.
Though it is not showing up here, Bob, I received your full comment via mail and appreciate it. Did you remove it? I don't disagree with you, in that political force in manipulating a country's government is terrible and involves terror--but while not agreeing with it (examples being Greece, Latin America, Vietnam, etc.)--I was addressing non-full-scale political violence, as in isolated (or even coordinated) singular acts meant to change a people's mind politically, short of full-scale invasion--be it overt or covert. However--I am glad you brought up such fiascos as the Vietnam incursions and full-scale war. I suppose there are two ways of looking at it in a certain frame of mind--and that being, what contributes to what? (1.) Do the small-scale acts of threat and violence intended to change minds (from man to man, group to group, tribe to tribe, faction to faction) affect and justify in the national psychology, the large scale acts between nations (from an isolated bombing, cutting off or blocking of aid and the random assassination to the full scale invasion), or (2.) is it the other way around? Is it both Is it a chicken and egg thing? Louie CK--incidentally--says that, in the chicken and egg question, "it's the chicken, ya idiot!" LOL.
CORRECTION(S):
In the closing statements, I said 'even if Trump is the threat to Trump'--whereas I had meant (and should have said) 'even if Trump is the threat to democracy'.
Note: There are various other slips of the tongue in this video, representative of accepted dialectical mispronouncements common to the vernacular, including many which I tried to annotate in the transcript for the subtitles, the latter of which I could not include, because ther glitches and poor design of the editing platform are so severe as to drive one to extreme distractions--and so for my mental health, I gave up. IN the future, I may use Clip Champ and upload my videos rather than making them here at SUBstandardSTACK. LOL.
Thoughtful essay. You called out all sides, incl industrialized bations who have a daddy complex, bringing waR to poor countries whenever they feel like it.
Thanks for the insights, Bob.
Though it is not showing up here, Bob, I received your full comment via mail and appreciate it. Did you remove it? I don't disagree with you, in that political force in manipulating a country's government is terrible and involves terror--but while not agreeing with it (examples being Greece, Latin America, Vietnam, etc.)--I was addressing non-full-scale political violence, as in isolated (or even coordinated) singular acts meant to change a people's mind politically, short of full-scale invasion--be it overt or covert. However--I am glad you brought up such fiascos as the Vietnam incursions and full-scale war. I suppose there are two ways of looking at it in a certain frame of mind--and that being, what contributes to what? (1.) Do the small-scale acts of threat and violence intended to change minds (from man to man, group to group, tribe to tribe, faction to faction) affect and justify in the national psychology, the large scale acts between nations (from an isolated bombing, cutting off or blocking of aid and the random assassination to the full scale invasion), or (2.) is it the other way around? Is it both Is it a chicken and egg thing? Louie CK--incidentally--says that, in the chicken and egg question, "it's the chicken, ya idiot!" LOL.