Trump gives interview to the Times of London

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight.  Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight.  However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys.  They are not.  I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive.  Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight.  Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight.  However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys.  They are not.  I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive.  Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

othershoe1030 wrote:Be that as it may the thread is about Trump's interview with the London Times and how he fails always and everywhere to answer the questions.

In this question he completely garbles the time line of the opposition research done first by other Republicans running against him for the nomination and then after that by some Democratic supporters. The two groups never worked together. Trump tried to use his own confusion as the explanation for why the information in the dossier could not be true.
It’s been reported that a British former diplomat was involved in this whole thing — do you think that we, in Britain, need to look at our intelligence services?

Well, that guy is somebody that you should look at, because whatever he made up about me it was false — he was supposedly hired by the Republicans and Democrats working together — even that I don’t believe because they don’t work together, they work separately — and they don’t hire the same guy — what they got together? See the whole thing is fake news because it said the, whoever it was, intelligence, the so-called intelligence, said he’s an operative of Republicans and Democrats — they don’t work together, they don’t work together.

Markle wrote:
Entirely feasible that Democrats and Republicans worked together to defeat President Donald Trump.

The elite Republicans vehemently hate Donald Trump and they shared the desire for him to be defeated with Democrats.  President Trump upset the status quo in Washington, that is hated by all the elites, both Republican and Democrat.

RealLindaL wrote:

Markle wrote:
Entirely feasible that Democrats and Republicans worked together to defeat President Donald Trump.

The elite Republicans vehemently hate Donald Trump and they shared the desire for him to be defeated with Democrats.  President Trump upset the status quo in Washington, that is hated by all the elites, both Republican and Democrat.

Correction:  Trump is hated by all the intelligent people, both Republican and Democrat.  Has nothing to do with being "elite," just smart.

But this thread is about his seeming inability to express himself's more likely being a foxy method of muddying things up so nobody realizes he didn't answer the question.  He's obviously gotten away with that method for years, but I don't think it's going to work on the world stage.

For one thing, as was astutely pointed out tonight by a TV talking head, Trump will be speaking to lots of foreign dignitaries who may have a limited grasp of the English language as it is.   Since we native English speakers can barely follow him ourselves, foreign diplomats and heads of state likely won't be able to understand him at all, so his favorite trick may backfire and/or or cause serious misunderstandings in foreign relations.

It's a problem.

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Be that as it may the thread is about Trump's interview with the London Times and how he fails always and everywhere to answer the questions.

In this question he completely garbles the time line of the opposition research done first by other Republicans running against him for the nomination and then after that by some Democratic supporters. The two groups never worked together. Trump tried to use his own confusion as the explanation for why the information in the dossier could not be true.
It’s been reported that a British former diplomat was involved in this whole thing — do you think that we, in Britain, need to look at our intelligence services?

Well, that guy is somebody that you should look at, because whatever he made up about me it was false — he was supposedly hired by the Republicans and Democrats working together — even that I don’t believe because they don’t work together, they work separately — and they don’t hire the same guy — what they got together? See the whole thing is fake news because it said the, whoever it was, intelligence, the so-called intelligence, said he’s an operative of Republicans and Democrats — they don’t work together, they don’t work together.

Entirely feasible that Democrats and Republicans worked together to defeat President Donald Trump.

The elite Republicans vehemently hate Donald Trump and they shared the desire for him to be defeated with Democrats.  President Trump upset the status quo in Washington, that is hated by all the elites, both Republican and Democrat.

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Be that as it may the thread is about Trump's interview with the London Times and how he fails always and everywhere to answer the questions.

In this question he completely garbles the time line of the opposition research done first by other Republicans running against him for the nomination and then after that by some Democratic supporters. The two groups never worked together. Trump tried to use his own confusion as the explanation for why the information in the dossier could not be true.
It’s been reported that a British former diplomat was involved in this whole thing — do you think that we, in Britain, need to look at our intelligence services?

Well, that guy is somebody that you should look at, because whatever he made up about me it was false — he was supposedly hired by the Republicans and Democrats working together — even that I don’t believe because they don’t work together, they work separately — and they don’t hire the same guy — what they got together? See the whole thing is fake news because it said the, whoever it was, intelligence, the so-called intelligence, said he’s an operative of Republicans and Democrats — they don’t work together, they don’t work together.

Entirely feasible that Democrats and Republicans worked together to defeat President Donald Trump.

The elite Republicans vehemently hate Donald Trump and they shared the desire for him to be defeated with Democrats.  President Trump upset the status quo in Washington, that is hated by all the elites, both Republican and Democrat.

Is that why six of Trump's selected cabinet members have worked for Goldman Sachs?  I'm not sure the elites, republican and democrat, are jealous of Trump's elitist connections, or what?  What does come through clear as a bell, is that the likelihood of Trump raising the economic plight of the middle class, is about the same as the likelihood that Tillerson and Exxon-Mobil will become the leading proponents for the need to reduce the use of fossil fuel.   Reality.

Markle wrote:
We have come to the age of translators.

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight.  Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight.  However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys.  They are not.  I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive.  Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

Tellthetruth wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight.  Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight.  However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys.  They are not.  I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive.  Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

Obama's lack of inaction in places like Syria and such emboldened Putin to do what he did in Crimea and the Ukraine- yes that Ukraine where seabass said there was no war .

Wordslinger wrote:

Tellthetruth wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight. Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight. However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys. They are not. I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive. Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

Obama's lack of inaction in places like Syria and such emboldened Putin to do what he did in Crimea and the Ukraine- yes that Ukraine where seabass said there was no war.

You would have preferred we invaded Syria with a few hundred thousand troops, right? Why do you continually engage your mouth before engaging your brain?

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Tellthetruth wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight.  Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight.  However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys.  They are not.  I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive.  Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

Obama's lack of inaction in places like Syria and such emboldened Putin to do what he did in Crimea and the Ukraine- yes that Ukraine where seabass said there was no war.

You would have preferred we invaded Syria with a few hundred thousand troops, right?  Why do you continually engage your mouth before engaging your brain?

Where did I say anything about "a few hundred thousand troops"?

We should have used our superior Air Force to bomb their airfields and air force out of existence.  Something that could have been done in a matter of days.  Following that, we'd have a no-fly zone which would have protected the Syrian citizens from the constant bombardment by their own leader.

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Tellthetruth wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight. Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight. However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys. They are not. I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive. Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

Obama's lack of inaction in places like Syria and such emboldened Putin to do what he did in Crimea and the Ukraine- yes that Ukraine where seabass said there was no war.

You would have preferred we invaded Syria with a few hundred thousand troops, right? Why do you continually engage your mouth before engaging your brain?

Where did I say anything about "a few hundred thousand troops"?

We should have used our superior Air Force to bomb their airfields and air force out of existence. Something that could have been done in a matter of days. Following that, we'd have a no-fly zone which would have protected the Syrian citizens from the constant bombardment by their own leader.

Brilliant. Syria's air forces include Russian planes and pilots. Your strategy would place us in direct combat with a nuclear ready opponent. A general you are not.

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Tellthetruth wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight.  Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight.  However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys.  They are not.  I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive.  Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

Obama's lack of inaction in places like Syria and such emboldened Putin to do what he did in Crimea and the Ukraine- yes that Ukraine where seabass said there was no war.

You would have preferred we invaded Syria with a few hundred thousand troops, right?  Why do you continually engage your mouth before engaging your brain?

Where did I say anything about "a few hundred thousand troops"?

We should have used our superior Air Force to bomb their airfields and air force out of existence.  Something that could have been done in a matter of days.  Following that, we'd have a no-fly zone which would have protected the Syrian citizens from the constant bombardment by their own leader.

Brilliant.  Syria's air forces include Russian planes and pilots.  Your strategy would place us in direct combat with a nuclear ready opponent.  A general you are not.

Cute try.

Syria's air force did NOT include Russian planes and pilots at the time Petulant President Obama laid down his ultimatum.  

Do you recall me, and many others telling Progressives/Socialists that if we (that would be the US) left a vacuum in the Middle East?  Several times I even asked you folks who would fill that vacuum.  China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or who.  As it turns out, both Russia and Iran have filled that vacuum.

The result of your preferred route is hundreds of thousands killed, entire cities destroyed and millions of refugees wreaking havoc in Europe.  Chaos Petulant President Obama has demanded that we (the United States) bring more of these unknown people to our country.

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Tellthetruth wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight.  Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight.  However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys.  They are not.  I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive.  Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

Obama's lack of inaction in places like Syria and such emboldened Putin to do what he did in Crimea and the Ukraine- yes that Ukraine where seabass said there was no war.

You would have preferred we invaded Syria with a few hundred thousand troops, right?  Why do you continually engage your mouth before engaging your brain?

Where did I say anything about "a few hundred thousand troops"?

We should have used our superior Air Force to bomb their airfields and air force out of existence.  Something that could have been done in a matter of days.  Following that, we'd have a no-fly zone which would have protected the Syrian citizens from the constant bombardment by their own leader.

Brilliant.  Syria's air forces include Russian planes and pilots.  Your strategy would place us in direct combat with a nuclear ready opponent.  A general you are not.

Cute try.

Syria's air force did NOT include Russian planes and pilots at the time Petulant President Obama laid down his ultimatum.  

Do you recall me, and many others telling Progressives/Socialists that if we (that would be the US) left a vacuum in the Middle East?  Several times I even asked you folks who would fill that vacuum.  China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or who.  As it turns out, both Russia and Iran have filled that vacuum.

The result of your preferred route is hundreds of thousands killed, entire cities destroyed and millions of refugees wreaking havoc in Europe.  Chaos Petulant President Obama has demanded that we (the United States) bring more of these unknown people to our country.

Reality -- Markle's whole theory is built on a false premise; that our pullout from Iraq is the cause of all our problems.  But you and I both know Assad's battle against his own people had nothing to do with what was going on in Iraq.  

Fact is, Dubya started our unending wars in the MidEast and Africa, Obama continued the game, and the Pussy Grabber with the dead rat on his head now says he's going to rebuild our military and "bomb the crap out of them!"  Right ... fer sure.  And he promises he will bring us "more victories than we will be able to stand" ... fer sure.  

But Markle, our resident fascist-racist insists all our losses in blood and money in these ongoing, unwinnable war are due to our black President -- former king of the progressives.  


As for our new "winning" policies promised by the Pussy Grabber, consider this, the generals he has chosen to accomplish all this are the same generals who got us where we are in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan.

Don't hold your breath waiting for all the victories Trump has promised.
Or, if your believe the Pussy Grabber and support him, please do hold your breath until the victories start rolling in ....

 

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Tellthetruth wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I think Trump the business man has a lifetime of experience with partnerships where somebody is not carrying their weight.  Early in the primary, I felt that he was right in expressing how America is paying to defend Europeans and they cannot pull their weight.  However, I am now confused as to his motives and his consistent need to make Putin and Russia out as good guys.  They are not.  I still think he is correct in demanding more for our partners in Europe, but to underestimate the ability of the Russian army to take territory is naive.  Nato is a credible deterrent, but it should not be our pockets which are paying for most of the same.

Of course ideally all NATO countries should pay their fair share but my worry about how Trump looks at the situation is, as you said, like a businessman. That's fine as far as it goes but the overarching concern is that Russia will be emboldened by a weakened NATO and continue to use military action to expand westward. Trump apparently fails to see this and is focused like a businessman on the bottom line rather than the political/military aspects of the situation.

Presumably the decision has been made that in the long run the U.S. is better off footing more of the bill than is technically our responsibility because that is preferable to having Europe fall into another war.

Obama's lack of inaction in places like Syria and such emboldened Putin to do what he did in Crimea and the Ukraine- yes that Ukraine where seabass said there was no war.

You would have preferred we invaded Syria with a few hundred thousand troops, right?  Why do you continually engage your mouth before engaging your brain?

Where did I say anything about "a few hundred thousand troops"?

We should have used our superior Air Force to bomb their airfields and air force out of existence.  Something that could have been done in a matter of days.  Following that, we'd have a no-fly zone which would have protected the Syrian citizens from the constant bombardment by their own leader.

Brilliant.  Syria's air forces include Russian planes and pilots.  Your strategy would place us in direct combat with a nuclear ready opponent.  A general you are not.

Cute try.

Syria's air force did NOT include Russian planes and pilots at the time Petulant President Obama laid down his ultimatum.  

Do you recall me, and many others telling Progressives/Socialists that if we (that would be the US) left a vacuum in the Middle East?  Several times I even asked you folks who would fill that vacuum.  China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or who.  As it turns out, both Russia and Iran have filled that vacuum.

The result of your preferred route is hundreds of thousands killed, entire cities destroyed and millions of refugees wreaking havoc in Europe.  Chaos Petulant President Obama has demanded that we (the United States) bring more of these unknown people to our country.

Reality -- Markle's whole theory is built on a false premise; that our pullout from Iraq is the cause of all our problems.  But you and I both know Assad's battle against his own people had nothing to do with what was going on in Iraq.  

Fact is, Dubya started our unending wars in the MidEast and Africa, Obama continued the game, and the Pussy Grabber with the dead rat on his head now says he's going to rebuild our military and "bomb the crap out of them!"  Right ... fer sure.  And he promises he will bring us "more victories than we will be able to stand" ... fer sure.  

But Markle, our resident fascist-racist insists all our losses in blood and money in these ongoing, unwinnable war are due to our black President -- former king of the progressives.  


As for our new "winning" policies promised by the Pussy Grabber, consider this, the generals he has chosen to accomplish all this are the same generals who got us where we are in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan.

Don't hold your breath waiting for all the victories Trump has promised.
Or, if your believe the Pussy Grabber and support him, please do hold your breath until the victories start rolling in ....

 

WHO KNEW?  Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama voted like many Democrats against the War on Terror and the Invasion of Iran.  How did that work?

What did President Obama do when Assad crossed the red line Obama had laid down.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
-  Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This "Administration".  The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country. three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society," he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going?  How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President?  Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities.  Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.



And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

Oddly, in some aspects we agree in this debate. Neither Dubya or Obama accomplished anything at all for all our costs in blood and money in the MidEast or Africa. And now we must look to the Pussy Grabber with the dead rat on his head, and his favored generals (the ones who already failed to conclude any of our ongoing, unwinnable, never-ending wars.

Trump has promised "to bomb the crap out of 'em!" And,
"I'll bring you so many victories, your heads will spin! You'll be asking me to "stop, we can't take anymore victories ..." etc.

He says he really didn't mean what he said on that buss about grabbing pussies, and whatever, and getting away with it when you're a star.

He promised a big, beautiful wall to be built with Mexican money across the full width of our southern border.

And he promised to bring us all together and heal our dysfunctional, fascist and racist nation.

He also promised God to love, honor and be faithful to his first two wives.

othershoe1030 wrote:
[/b]

Wordslinger wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:
[/b]

OMG! I was eating breakfast when I saw this Wordslinger!!

othershoe1030 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:
[/b]

OMG! I was eating breakfast when I saw this Wordslinger!!

Oops!  Sorry, my bad ....!!  LOL

Telstar wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:
I was listening to Dennis Prager on 1330 on my morning walk and interestingly he was talking about fake news and the right/left alternative realities.

I am coming to the conclusion that we could use a neutral arbiter to begin to get us back to "reality". I don't know who to recommend. It would have to be someone who everyone respected. I'm talking about the need for this on a national level. Perhaps one or even two of our more prominent historians who have a depth of knowledge in our history?

Good luck with that. I doubt the right and left have ever been so far apart.