Russiagate

[Schmelzer]

Lots of people have found him very easy to predict. Why do you think you are having trouble doing what so many others find easy?

I have grown up in a community which has not had any problem making a lot of predictions. Unfortunately, they have failed completely. I decided to ignore predictions made on a similar base.

But if that is false - as it was - it's maybe not a bad idea. (I think it was in practice a bad idea, but for less addled reasons having to do with the chosen means and ends).

It was not false. There were no other strong forces.

So more like Clinton than Trump? Odd.

No, less warmongering than Clinton, in this question on the other side of Trump. You know, in a reliable, normal society Trump would be named an extreme warmonger, for his relation to Iran. It is only in the perverse situation of the US that such a warmonger looks, in comparison with almost all the other candidates like a peace dove.

Is that what the propaganda feed you subscribe to told you happened? Trump just "allowed" this?

This is what the available situation tells me. There is not too much information about it. Known facts are that the SA-Qatar conflict is an old one, so to accuse Trump of inventing or creating the conflict would be stupid. "Allowed" is simply on the safe side, nothing is known of Trump trying to prevent it.

How is "allowing" different from "doing nothing"?
And where did you get the notion Obama was "doing nothing"?
And isn't "doing nothing" something you favor, in US foreign policy?

"Doing nothing" was only a shortcut for "doing nothing to help the people in Yemen". Using here "allowing" would not make sense. The notion that the US does nothing to help them is easy to get, if you know which side the US supports in the conflict.
Probably "doing something for the Yemen people" for you is something like some cosmetic modifications of the support. So, let's see what happened near the end of Obama administration:

"Still, the decision was not the cut-off in support that Saudi Arabia’s biggest critics had hoped for and much of the U.S. military relationship will remain intact. For example, the United States will keep refueling Saudi-led coalition aircraft involved in the campaign,"

Propaganda fantasies about Putin's illegal billions in the West endangered by the Magnitsky Act disposed.

Putin also has to justify the hardship that the Russian civilian population is enduring, constantly propping up his leadership with propaganda and begging for tolerance from all the Crime syndicates that are suffocating under the sanctions.

You need no propaganda to tell the Russian people that sanctions together with low oil price can cause some problems. What the government has done in this situation was sufficiently successful: The sanctions continue, the oil price remains low, but the crisis is over, the inflation is actually on a low since 1991. Crime syndicates play no longer a political role, this was a problem in the past. I would recommend you to read less Western propaganda about Russia.

 

[iceaura]

I have grown up in a community which has not had any problem making a lot of predictions. Unfortunately, they have failed completely. I decided to ignore predictions made on a similar base.

So correct predictions easily made and borne out consistently over time carry no weight with you, because of other people's bad predictions.
And that's why you find Trump unpredictable - you find everyone unpredictable, by assumption, regardless of how well and how easily others predict them. So your multiple and consistent failures at prediction or even evaluation, compared with other people's multiple and consistent successes, are no reason to re-evaluate your presumptions -

and you are willing to use those presumptions to evaluate new situations, compare predicted futures, etc, regardless of this record.

It was not false. There were no other strong forces.

There were not those strong forces, either.

You know, in a reliable, normal society Trump would be named an extreme warmonger, for his relation to Iran.

Or to a normal informed person, not only for his relation to Iran but for his fascist political identity. Much more than Clinton or Obama, say.

It is only in the perverse situation of the US that such a warmonger looks, in comparison with almost all the other candidates like a peace dove.

Only to someone who refuses to recognize belligerence and violence and threat and bullying when it's right in front of them.

This is what the available situation tells me.

No, it doesn't. Aspects of situations you refuse to consider do not become unavailable thereby.

Known facts are that the SA-Qatar conflict is an old one, so to accuse Trump of inventing or creating the conflict would be stupid.

But to point out that his administration appears to be making things worse would not be stupid.

"Doing nothing" was only a shortcut for "doing nothing to help the people in Yemen". Using here "allowing" would not make sense.

Sure it would. Allowing bad things and doing nothing to help prevent bad things are quite similar - although allowing presumes the ability to forbid, which is perhaps a more shameful circumstance.

Propaganda fantasies about Putin's illegal billions in the West endangered by the Magnitsky Act disposed.

Never existed. Do try to pay attention to the actual posting you answer, eh?

Crime syndicates play no longer a political role, this was a problem in the past.

Oh my lord. That's a pitcher of koolaid I did not expect to be gulped in public.
The Russian administration is a crime syndicate, playing the central political role of governing the country. Putin won, he didn't disappear.
Whether that's a problem for you - it doesn't seem to be - is another question.
It is a problem for the citizens of the US, because our current administration is up to its eyeballs in underhanded Russian government dealings - much as a fellow big time criminal enterprise would behave. And having one's country run by a criminal syndicate is not the improvement for the US that it appears to be for the Russians.

 

[Schmelzer]

The usual "you are wrong/stupid" BS without any arguments disposed.

But to point out that his administration appears to be making things worse would not be stupid.

If this appears to you, no problem.

About my rhetorical "Putin's billions":

Never existed. Do try to pay attention to the actual posting you answer, eh?

Yes, and sometimes I use satirical means to answer. If you think " they curb his familia's foreign dealings," is more serious, ok, your choice, I don't think so.

The Russian administration is a crime syndicate, playing the central political role of governing the country. Putin won, he didn't disappear.
Whether that's a problem for you - it doesn't seem to be - is another question.

All governments are essentially crime syndicates, all what makes the difference is the factual control over a territory, the real monopoly of force. You have talked about "all the Crime syndicates" as if there are many, instead of a single one named government. This was correct in the past, in Yeltsin time, but not actually.

And having one's country run by a criminal syndicate is not the improvement for the US that it appears to be for the Russians.

Actually what develops in the US is a war between two crime syndicates, two factions of the former unique crime syndicate. This is, indeed, not an improvement for the US population, but not that problematic for the rest of the world.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, and sometimes I use satirical means to answer.

No, you don't, actually. That would require a base of sound means. Poe's Law deprives you of that tactic.

If you think " they curb his familia's foreign dealings," is more serious, ok, your choice, I don't think so.

But you say this as someone who claimed, explicitly, that there was some kind of contradiction between abetting theft from the Russian government and colluding with Russian government agents. You used that supposed conflict as an assumption, unquestionable, you based your objections to other's posting on that as an assumed fact.

Given that level of willful and bizarre ignorance, your opinions are shit. The money laundering and cyberhacking and similar Russian contributions to international organized crime are coming from Putin's government and its associates these days - and Trump is enmeshed in this underworld.

All governments are essentially crime syndicates,

That's false. Putin's is, others - such as my State's, country's such as Canada, etc - are not. In my country we can even contrast neighboring cities - some have criminal governments, some don't. It makes a difference.

You have talked about "all the Crime syndicates" as if there are many, instead of a single one named government.

No, I haven't. That was you, doing that.
I have instead directed your attention to the absurdity of your claim that organized crime plays no political role in Russia any more, when the entire country is being governed by organized crime.

Actually what develops in the US is a war between two crime syndicates, two factions of the former unique crime syndicate.

Nonsense.

At no time in US history has there been one unique "syndicate" or "side" or anything of that kind, criminal or otherwise, running the country. We've never had a Putin - a few wannabes, like Trump, but so far nobody has pulled it off.

There has been no recent split, or rise of a formerly unrepresented faction to start a new fight. The Trump supporters, and guys likeTrump himself, go back hundreds of years, for example. Fascism is just their adaptation to industrial civilization. (They have in the past launched a Civil War as well as contributing heavily to the launching of various foreign wars - including the Iraq War that is the proximate cause of the current US involvement in Syria, just a heads-up).

You are not taking in information, and as with all the sensory-deprived you hallucinate.
Lacking information, refusing to reality-check, you project these hallucinations unto distant places - in a mirror image of the Western (pagan) idea of the "noble savage" (transmuted into "reputation-governed capitalist"), you have the Eastern (Abrahamic) idea of the "corrupt civilization" (transmuted into "government is crime").

These have been discarded as plot settings for serious novels, let alone political analysis.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's false. Putin's is, others - such as my State's, country's such as Canada, etc - are not.

Really? They don't take taxes, with penalties for those who do not pay, and live from this income? That's new to me. Tell me more about this.

In my country we can even contrast neighboring cities - some have criminal governments, some don't. It makes a difference.

No, I haven't.

Sorry, indeed, this was Quantum Quack. You have answered my reply to him.

Usual "you are stupid" nonsense disposed, but this was so funny that I have preserved it:

Lacking information, refusing to reality-check, you project these hallucinations unto distant places - in a mirror image of the Western (pagan) idea of the "noble savage" (transmuted into "reputation-governed capitalist"), you have the Eastern (Abrahamic) idea of the "corrupt civilization" (transmuted into "government is crime").

LOL, my position described with the idea of some "corrupt civilization", YMMD.

 

[iceaura]

Really? They don't take taxes, with penalties for those who do not pay, and live from this income?

Taxation is crime, says the "libertarian"
who was baffled by the idea that Russian government officials are stealing from the public treasury and laundering the money overseas - found the idea literally unthinkable.

Usual "you are stupid" nonsense disposed,

Calling it nonsense won't make it go away.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ah but of course in a reputational multi-pole system crime doesn't exist does it...?!!

 

[Schmelzer]

Ah but of course in a reputational multi-pole system crime doesn't exist does it...?!!

Why do you suggest that I would propose such stupid claims? Of course, the wrongdoings named "crimes" will exist as long as humanity exists. (Of course, if there would be no formal law, and one defines crime as a violation of formal law, there will be no crime by definition. But the wrongdoings named crimes today will not go away by such word games.)

Taxation is crime, says the "libertarian"
who was baffled by the idea that Russian government officials are stealing from the public treasury and laundering the money overseas - found the idea literally unthinkable.

And yet another lie. Of course, the usual propaganda lies against Russia are certainly "thinkable". If they would be unthinkable, they would not be used in smear propaganda. For such propaganda to work, one needs accusations with are not only thinkable, but even more or less plausible. And, in fact, given that Russia in the 90's was ruled by criminal gangs, it is even plausible. All one needs is ignorance, combined with misinformation by the Western propaganda, which presents actual Russian reality as even worse than the nice democratic paradise of Yeltsin time.

Let's remember the context where this question appeared, namely my remark about http://www.businessinsider.com/why-was-russian-money-laundering-case-dismissed-house-dems-2017-7

ROTFL. Trump jr. pays the Russian government by settling with a firm which has helped money laundering of money stolen from the Russian treasury. YMMD.

So, the context is one where one needs a proof of some collusion with the Russian government. And this "proof" consists here in doing a favor to people laundering money stolen from that government. Even if some members of the Russian government steel money from Russia, supporting them doing such things is not supporting the Russian government, but harming it.

 

[iceaura]

And yet another lie. Of course, the usual propaganda lies against Russia are certainly "thinkable".

No, that's not a lie.
You posted that the claim of collusion with the Russian government to launder money stolen from the Russian government,
which was my claim, based on decades of frankly overwhelming evidence by now,
by Trump, his family, and most of his close associates,
was absurd - your refutation of my post was simply to observe that I was making that claim, which you regarded as obviously silly.

That's how you determined all this Russia stuff is "propaganda lies", as far as I can tell - you argue that they don't make sense, as claims, so they have to be lies. If reported events don't make sense to you, you dismiss them as propaganda - and you can't see fascism, so a lot of recent Russian and Trump news doesn't make sense to you.

Like this:

Even if some members of the Russian government steel money from Russia, supporting them doing such things is not supporting the Russian government, but harming it.

What a silly, silly thing to post.
And you're the guy who's supposed to be the realistic and cynical evaluator of government, the guy who sees the crime that is government clearly - unlike the rest of us sheeple.
You simply have no idea - not a fucking clue - how, why, where, and when, fascism - actually criminal government - works. Which is why you have no idea who Trump is, or what he has done or is likely to do, any more than you have about Putin (or Pinochet, or Franco, or any of these guys, btw).

Of course Trump is harming Russia by colluding with Putin's fascistic administration, currently the government of Russia, to cheat and rob and betray the Russian (and Ukrainian, and probably others, btw) people. He's harming the US, as well - its people, its governance, etc - that's why there are laws against this kind of behavior in the US. That's fascism. That's how it rolls.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's how you determined all this Russia stuff is "propaganda lies", as far as I can tell - you argue that they don't make sense, as claims, so they have to be lies. If reported events don't make sense to you, you dismiss them as propaganda - and you can't see fascism, so a lot of recent Russian and Trump news doesn't make sense to you.

About Russia I read Russian bloggers. So, I have some information what happens there, enough to distinguish obvious propaganda from reasonable articles.

And you're the guy who's supposed to be the realistic and cynical evaluator of government, the guy who sees the crime that is government clearly - unlike the rest of us sheeple. You simply have no idea - not a fucking clue - how, why, where, and when, fascism - actually criminal government - works.

Why do you think so? There is the completely legal way of government workers to rob the population: Getting taxes and living from the official wages. And there are a lot of illegal ways, ways which you have to hide if you do them, even if everybody knows that everybody is doing them. To do such things successfully, you have to cooperate with others in networks which remain hidden. The same deep state. A nice example of a state where such criminal behavior rules so openly that it is almost not hidden is the Ukraine.

But even in this case, cooperating with, say, Poroshenko helping him to laundry stolen Ukrainian money would be criminal collusion with the criminal guy Poroshenko against the Ukrainian state, and illegal in the Ukraine, and not a collusion with the Ukrainian government. And admitting such things would not be considered as collusion with the Ukrainian government even by the Donbass republics. So, one of the Donezk military leaders has openly claimed that Poroshenko owes him yet some weapons as a consequence of him buying weapons from the Ukrainian army for the Novorussian militias during the civil war. Nobody accuses all those Donbass fighters who have bought weapons from the corrupt Ukrainian army for collusion with the fascist Ukrainian government.

 

[iceaura]

About Russia I read Russian bloggers. So, I have some information what happens there, enough to distinguish obvious propaganda from reasonable articles.

You say similar things about your ability to distinguish "obvious propaganda" from the US, which you are completely and demonstrably incapable of doing.

Why do you think so? There is the completely legal way of government workers to rob the population: Getting taxes and living from the official wages

That's not robbery, if the government represents the governed and derives its powers from their consent. But to see that distinction, you have to recognize fascism - when it doesn't. And you can't do that.

But even in this case, cooperating with, say, Poroshenko helping him to laundry stolen Ukrainian money would be criminal collusion with the criminal guy Poroshenko against the Ukrainian state, and illegal in the Ukraine, and not a collusion with the Ukrainian government.

Just stop, ok? It's embarrassing. You can't walk those posts back, there's nothing in them that needs explaining.

Start over, with the near-certain and plainly visible physical realities of the matter:

One of them is that Trump and his family and almost every one of his close associates have been - among other criminal endeavors - aiding and colluding and cooperating and so forth with agents and associates of the Russian government engaged in laundering money stolen from the Russian government (among other victims).

Another is that they sought out (and appear to have accepted) offers of help from these agents and associates of the Russian government in their 2016 political campaign.

A third is that Trump's business affairs, from which he has not divested himself, involve lots of Russian money and Russian help and debt to Russian "investors", all of them associated with the Russian government one way or another.

None of that is legal. All of it violates Trump's oath of office, and the similar agreements undertaken by his family and close associates in the executive branch.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's not robbery, if the government represents the governed and derives its powers from their consent. But to see that distinction, you have to recognize fascism - when it doesn't. And you can't do that.

Of course, if the robber gets the money and holsters his gun, it is not robbery if the other guy has made him simply a volitional present. And you are wrong, often fascism has even much more support from the "governed" than a non-fascist government.

Just stop, ok?

Ok, you are anyway uneducable.

 

[iceaura]

Of course, if the robber gets the money and holsters his gun, it is not robbery if the other guy has made him simply a volitional present.

Irrelevant - no analogous situation is involved. Representative government, powers derived from consent, remember?
And as predicted, the distinction is invisible to you.

And you are wrong, often fascism has even much more support from the "governed" than a non-fascist government.

That's not what I posted. What I posted was not wrong.

Besides: you are not capable of recognizing fascist government - how would you know? You couldn't even see Trump coming, or recognize his dealings with Putin's government.

 

[Schmelzer]

Representative government, powers derived from consent, remember?

In etatist ideology it is. In libertarian theory it is not derived from consent, it is, instead, the absence of consent which makes it a government, instead of a volitional form of cooperation.

And as predicted, the distinction is invisible to you.

That's not what I posted. What I posted was not wrong.

Let's see. You wrote "That's not robbery, if the government represents the governed and derives its powers from their consent. But to see that distinction, you have to recognize fascism - when it doesn't." When it doesn't what? Clearly, when it doesn't represent the governed or doesn't derive its power from their consent. But fascism often enough derives its power from their consent. There remains the logical possibility that fascism doesn't represent the governed. That does not make much sense. At least in international affairs, every state, fascist or not, represents its governed. In other meanings, it is simply a quite meaningless ideological soundbite.

Besides: you are not capable of recognizing fascist government - how would you know?

To know fascism in a conservative meaning of the word is quite easy, there have bee a lot of organizations around the world which have openly described themselves as fascist movements. One can add German national socialism and all movements in this tradition. Where they have reached power, they have often had a lot of support from the masses. So, my knowledge of fascism is sufficient to make this point. I may not be capable to guess correctly what particular factions of the left name "fascism". Usually the meaning is simply "very bad" and therefore is too vague to be predictable. For some from the left the vagueness is so extreme that even openly fascist movements like those in the Ukrainian are not named fascist.

 

[sculptor]

if one assumes that consent of the governed is defined by lack of dissent
then, yes
consent of the governed

There is a grey area here
It seems that most people have a "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" go along attitude when it comes to being governed.
As in some threads within this site, it seems that many would dissent to the particular people who are now in power without dissenting to the political structure which placed those people in positions of power.
Perhaps, it doesn't really matter who is dealing the cards: The house always wins.

 

[iceaura]

But fascism often enough derives its power from their consent.

In the US, the consent of at most 27% of the public (and most of them deny it). In the old Confederacy, the consent of the white men.

There remains the logical possibility that fascism doesn't represent the governed. That does not make much sense.

And once again you declare reality to not exist because it makes no sense to you.

To know fascism in a conservative meaning of the word is quite easy, there have bee a lot of organizations around the world which have openly described themselves as fascist movements.

That hasn't helped you recognize the ones that do not. Which is how you come to look straight at Putin and Trump and see nothing.

It seems that most people have a "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" go along attitude when it comes to being governed.

Adults only get to excuse themselves for ignorance up to a limit. We're way past that limit, with Trump.

Perhaps, it doesn't really matter who is dealing the cards: The house always wins

As Reagan, W, and now Trump demonstrate: it matters a great deal who's dealing the cards. Because the house - the country - can lose if it's slipshod in hiring dealers.

 

[Schmelzer]

And once again you declare reality to not exist because it makes no sense to you.

If A represents B is some objective reality? As you use it, it is a meaningless ideological phrase. A can represent B if he has a permission of B to do this. In this sense, fascism can represent those who support him, so, in the cases where fascism has the consent of the masses, one can say he represents these masses too. One can as well say that the state anyway, even without any consent, represents all citizens. In this case, fascism represents even more, all the citizens. So, in the case where a fascist government has the consent of the masses, your "That's not robbery, if the government represents the governed and derives its powers from their consent. But to see that distinction, you have to recognize fascism - when it doesn't." is wrong. Point.

That hasn't helped you recognize the ones that do not. Which is how you come to look straight at Putin and Trump and see nothing.

I do not use fascism simply as an invective, and see no reason to care about a word which is discredited as a cheap invective used against all right-wing political enemies of the left anyway. Where I have a more or less precise meaning for fascism is the economic system, corporatism. And this system I see everywhere, not only Trump and Putin, but Obama and Merkel too, with some possible exceptions for NK and Cuba, which are closer to communist planned economy with government property of the means of production. This is also nothing new to you. So your "you see nothing" is a usual lie too - I see, in particular, the economic system of fascism. In the left, at least the Marxist, tradition, economy is if not everything, but at least the most important thing, not?

 

[sculptor]

Long ago and far away (when I was in the army): It dawned on me that we were "keeping the world safe for democracy" by supporting every petty dictator in sight.
10 presidents later and we're still doing the same old crap.

When the rhetoric and reality contradict each other, one must question one or the other or both.

Choose wisely grasshopper.

 

[iceaura]

If A represents B is some objective reality?

Yep.

As you use it, it is a meaningless ideological phrase

So you insist. Because the alternative to its being meaningless is that you are posting nonsense.
Like this:

So, in the case where a fascist government has the consent of the masses, your "That's not robbery, if the government represents the governed and derives its powers from their consent. But to see that distinction, you have to recognize fascism - when it doesn't." is wrong. Point.

where you most carefully omit the necessary representation in the supposed "consent", and thereby avoid confronting what is for you a directly and personally fraught matter: the roles of coercion, deception, and media propaganda, in establishing fascist governance.

Because you are among the most gullible of posters here, in the face of sophisticated American fascist agitprop. You fall for the dumbest stuff those guys put out.

Where I have a more or less precise meaning for fascism is the economic system, corporatism. And this system I see everywhere, not only Trump and Putin, but Obama and Merkel too, with some possible exceptions for NK and Cuba, which are closer to communist planned economy with government property of the means of production.

Your invented revisions of the meanings of English words is not entertaining enough to be worth posting. The rest of us would prefer to address thread topics, using a common vocabulary - which in the case of fascism, is difficult enough to maintain without your bs muddling things.

I see, in particular, the economic system of fascism.

Fascism has no monopoly on its characteristic economic system. You have again reversed the direction of implication - mistaken "if" for "if and only if", and argued backwards. You do that a lot - Don't European educated math guys get any training in logic?

 

[billvon]

And now Trump has fired Priebus after Scaramucci said he'd fire him, then said he wanted to kill everyone on White House staff. Then Scaramucci claimed he never said that. And blamed the press.

It's like House of Cards but with a deranged scriptwriter.