The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

All the major US media blathered on about that for months.

About what Putin has said on the press conference 4 days ago? LOL.

That's after they (actual libertarians) have paid attention to the definition and delimitation of property - a function of government, necessarily and by definition, and a common means of depriving people of liberty.

Looks like left-libertarians, who have problems with the private property, want to gain the word "libertarian" for themselves. What I name "libertarian" is what is described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States which mentions only for completeness that "libertarian socialist intellectuals Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others argue that the term "libertarianism" is considered a synonym for social anarchism by the international community and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free-market ideology." I have not seen something similar, at least in Germany libertarian is used as an anglicism with the American pro-free-marked meaning.

from people who think if they get rid of the State coercion will disappear.

A complete lie. How to organize legitimate coercion (for the defense of property from criminals) is one of the problems often discussed, with different solutions proposed, say, by minarchists and those who prefer private security firms.
And this from people who think if the State goes away property will disappear.

Volitional contracts that are in fact extortion and abuse are very common. Contracts without any coercion don't exist at all.

Nonsense. Volitional contracts may be based on fraud and deception, but if that is found out, it invalidates the contract in common law. So, these are exceptions, not the rule. Contracts made with coercion are not contracts at all. To redefine coercion in such a way that every volitional contract becomes coercion is a known Marxist technique: Once all volitional contracts become "coercion", there is no longer a difference between volitional contracts and coercion, so that one is free to use coercion if one likes - it makes no difference. The same trick as defaming liberal democracy "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" - the "dictatorship of the proletariat" they created did not have to give the citizens any liberties at all.

So Russians don't know what's going on here?

They know, and a lot more than Americans about what is going on in Russia.

BTW, I don't understand: You think that something important has happened in Helsinki? Explain. The arguments here have been about Trump talking nonsense without caring about this, but this was known to Russians from the time of the election campaign. I have tried hard to understand what the fuss is really about, but, say, https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/1...e-in-helsinki-intelligence-nato-putin-baltic/ only supports the point that they go nuts about nothing.

You finally figure that out? Cool. Now ask them if they care.

No, I simply repeated, just for clarification, a triviality. And the question, if somebody cares about being moral, is something very different from the particular moral discussed itself, which was discussed.

 

[iceaura]

"All the major US media blathered on about that for months."
About what Putin has said on the press conference 4 days ago? LOL.

Yep. That's maybe where Putin got it - all you guys seem to get your news from US wingnut feeds.

Looks like left-libertarians, who have problems with the private property, want to gain the word "libertarian" for themselves.

We have no problem with private property. And we have the original claim on the term "libertarian".

from people who think if they get rid of the State coercion will disappear
A complete lie.

You post the stuff, not me. You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge any coercion other than by the State.

Nonsense. Volitional contracts may be based on fraud and deception, but if that is found out, it invalidates the contract in common law

Fraud or deception is not the issue - coercion is.
Meanwhile: No government, no common law; no contract, no "validity".

They know, and a lot more than Americans about what is going on in Russia.

You claimed they didn't know what the fuss was about. They obviously don't know, by what you posted. If they did they would understand what the American problem was with Trump's behavior in Helsinki.

BTW, I don't understand: You think that something important has happened in Helsinki? Explain.

Trump made the character of his Presidency and administration too obvious for the wingnut media feed to cover up reliably.
See, the fascist rise has not actually taken over - the Republicans have not taken complete control of the US government. They still need to persuade, to keep the support of their base.

No, I simply repeated, just for clarification, a triviality. And the question, if somebody cares about being moral, is something very different from the particular moral discussed itself, which was discussed.

So you never intended to imply that anything you were posting was relevant to the actions of existing corporations in this world, and all this morality talk is of theoretical interest in regard to some other planet only?
That would explain a lot. I overlooked that possibility.

ahh yes the no true scotsman fallacy.

? You have it backwards. It's the "many true Scotsmen" observation.

also if you go by what americans actually support the plurality is democratic socialists which are the opposites of libertarians

Not the opposite of left libertarians. It's standard and typical of them.

 

[spidergoat]

Trump keeps saying that the USA has been ripped off by China. Is this true?

Not completely. US businesses benefit greatly from low cost manufacturing. It wasn't that long ago that Republicans celebrated the free trade success of Walmart, which is basically an outlet for Chinese products.

 

[Quantum Quack]

BTW, I don't understand: You think that something important has happened in Helsinki? Explain. The arguments here have been about Trump talking nonsense without caring about this, but this was known to Russians from the time of the election campaign. I have tried hard to understand what the fuss is really about, but, say, https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/1...e-in-helsinki-intelligence-nato-putin-baltic/ only supports the point that they go nuts about nothing.

My thoughts...
The main reason there is such crazy media reaction is because most persons (globally) observing Trump over the last few years have considerable concerns that Trump is seriously compromised and effectively subordinate to Putin. That Putin has seriously damaging material and the USA is being extorted via this Trump/Putin Relationship into "inaction" or future "inaction" against Russian aggression.
And while Trump may not actually be the classic Manchurian candidate he appears to say and suggest things that only add fuel to the intense speculation about his actual allegiances.

The question that comes to my mind is deadly serious:
"In the event of a Russian first strike against the USA would Trump order appropriate mitigations and defense?"
or would he delay his reaction due to his "relationship" with Putin?
(the MAD doctrine only functions as a deterrent if symmetry exists.)
​

The recent summit with Putin amplified those concerns due to the incredible statements Trump has made, which he has had to since recant, roll back or back peddle on.

Right or wrong is not the point... it is a matter of perception, just as it is that Russians may feel fearful of USA aggression etc...there are significant reasons to believe that Trump may be seriously compromised, however because his behavior is blatant and obvious one seriously has to wonder whether he is simply the fool, the buffoon, the naive and not a Manchurian at all.

 

[arfa brane]

When is the USA going to wake up and do something about Trump's presidency?

There does seem to be an air of paralysis, a sense everyone is sitting back and waiting for something to happen one way or the other. Some are saying Trump really is a Sith Lord, and has the GOP under mind control, using his powers from the Dark Side.

No, really.

 

[river]

Hmmm....

Trump is a business man first and as we have learned from world war 1 and 2 , business has no loyalty , to any side .

 

[Quantum Quack]

When is the USA going to wake up and do something about Trump's presidency?

There does seem to be an air of paralysis, a sense everyone is sitting back and waiting for something to happen one way or the other. Some are saying Trump really is a Sith Lord, and has the GOP under mind control, using his powers from the Dark Side.

No, really.

Just thoughts ( and because I have an hour to kill)
The only reason it all doesn't make sense is because of what we don't know about what we know...
If it appears crazy, it IS because it is crazy, but only if one concludes that we have all the information on the issue.
For example:
1) In 2010 Wiki Leaks released a huge number of classified documents and highly sensitive information into the public domain. We do NOT know how much more material they withheld from publication or who may currently hold that information.
The sheer fact that more information of a highly classified nature may be withheld for later use by WikiLeaks or others ( including Russian FSB) immediately tells you that the USA Government is potentially and therefore seriously compromised.

2) Trump even now often refers to the missing Hillary emails as if it were the only thing the hackers could not access. It's as if he is angry that "his" hackers have failed to find them and he is constantly challenging them to continue looking for them.

If one considers for a moment that the hack on USA instrumentality's back then was a State sponsored, zero day type attack then almost all servers ( including email) owned by the government would have been compromised in an almost simultaneous, one off and extremely thorough manner. One can only guess at the hoard of extremely damaging material gained by the hackers and what they could use that information for. The anti virus software used it self could be part of a zero day plot.

If you were a member of congress and were informed that your emails and inter-department correspondence was in the hands of extortionists, how would you respond? Especially if those materials were being held for political reasons and not directly financial ones?

Suddenly Trump, congressional, security services strange behavior starts to make a little more sense and is not as crazy as it may superficially be perceived, in fact it would be even expected as the USA security services attempt to find a solution with out forcing the further release of damaging material. ( Strategy of stall and delay to gain time to find a solution re: Mueller investigation, Summits with Putin, Putin invited to White House etc)
It is also possible that the Russians have been targeted as well and the group responsible may be unaffiliated with either.
btw: The hacked files could have been disseminated to thousands of computer servers world wide with pre-programmed automatic release triggers for all we know.

Julian Assange even suggested as such, when he release a couple of 64 bit cryptic keys the day he was to lose his internet connection in the embassy a few years ago. ( I can't remember the article specifically but will search if necessary)

Summary:
So while it all seems so strange it only does so because we lack the knowledge needed to make sense of it. It could be only what they ( the victims of the hacks) don't know that is leading to this strange behavior observed in Trump and others.

 

[iceaura]

When is the USA going to wake up and do something about Trump's presidency?

You mean do something about the Republican Party.
There are plenty of Reagans and Ws where Trump came from, there's a Pence sitting in the next office and a Ryan third in line for this Presidency. The Republican Presidency is a done deal for the time being.

As far as Trump himself goes, his vulgarity and venality and vindictiveness and so forth, pretty much everybody has always been awake. They were just kind of hoping it wouldn't get too bad in public. Unfortunately, as Mike Royko pointed out regarding Gerald Ford - way back when there were Mike Roykos among the pundits of America* - the Presidency "ain't a pair of baggy pants": nobody grows into the job.

There does seem to be an air of paralysis, a sense everyone is sitting back and waiting for something to happen one way or the other. Some are saying Trump really is a Sith Lord, and has the GOP under mind control, using his powers from the Dark Side.

It's a version of the sunk cost fallacy - these people committed to the Republican Party, and step by step that meant committing to Donald Trump. So they did. Their life's savings, so to speak, are sunk into Donald Trump's latest enthusiasm.

Denial, not innocent sleep, has set up the basic problem: the sunk cost of integrity is so large by now that taking it as a loss is seriously painful. They have already demonstrated their long established ethical vacuum, their long established lack of moral principles, their longstanding gullibility, in their willingness after months of consideration and viewing of evidence to accept representation by Donald Trump. From "Rush is Right" to "Palin for President" to "MAGA" is a series of very small steps, each one more difficult to refuse. That's done. To write that off as a loss - to accept what their support of Trump has done to them and revealed to the world about them - is too painful to expect from these folks.

From the complicit media, from the Republican Party and everyone in it, it's going to be bothsides and denial indefinitely.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Royko

In 1972, Royko received the Pulitzer Prize for commentary as a Daily News columnist.

When the Daily News closed, Royko worked for its allied morning newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times. In 1984, Rupert Murdoch, for whom Royko said he would never work, bought the Sun-Times. Royko commented that "No self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped in a Murdoch paper", and "[H]is goal is not quality journalism. His goal is vast power for Rupert Murdoch, political power".[6] Mike Royko then worked for the rival Chicago Tribune, -

Royko, Pulitzer Prize winner though he was, needed the job. But he quit because he would not work for Rupert Murdoch. When Murdoch bought the WSJ, nobody quit.

 

[Quantum Quack]

another extreme example:
Consider that the BUK missle system employed in Ukraine that shot down MH17 could have been hacked and how that would send an example of extreme leverage to world leaders...

 

[pjdude1219]

? You have it backwards. It's the "many true Scotsmen" observation.

what ever you say your a libertarian so therefore better and smarter than i ever could be.

Not the opposite of left libertarians. It's standard and typical of them.

no it isn't. give you hint it was a left libertarian who wrote the book entitled against democracy. most people aren't libertarian

 

[iceaura]

give you hint it was a left libertarian who wrote the book entitled against democracy.

Once again your omission of basic information and inability to punctuate impose guesswork on the reader you abuse. My guess is you are talking about a book with the title "Against Democracy", and it's not Simon During's lament for the loss of literary culture in the rise of the unwashed horde to political agency, but rather the one by this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Brennan,
whose previous work includes https://reason.com/archives/2014/11/02/why-capitalism
- a famous defense of corporate capitalism (not completely self-aware of that aspect, btw) on the grounds that even the informed and saintly cannot arrange any kind or arena of socialist governance or severe corporate regulation without doing moral wrong as well as pragmatic injury -
and this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rianism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.71d6a7abac4d
- in which libertarian objections to being told what to do are largely confined to the behavior of self-described governments, largely omitting or dismissing personal and economic coercion, as is traditional among the rightwing -
and this: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/markets-without-limits-moral-virtues-and-commercial-interests/
- another in the long list of examples of rightwing libertarians overlooking or ignoring the encroachment (hence moral hazard) of coercive power and oppressive effects common via incorporated or accumulated capital in human relations (whatever their insights otherwise - they are libertarians, after all) -
and this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29151823-political-philosophy
- which is published by the Cato Institute, an institution that regardless of its merit is not known for its catalog of leftwing analysis.
The Cato Institute also sponsors talks by him, book promotions on Fox Business News, etc.
And he contributes here: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com
a blog whose common perspective on leftwing matters is one hopes visible?

The same argument applies to libraries. Rather than operate public libraries, the state should privatize them and cut taxes accordingly. Anyone who wants a library membership can use their tax savings to get one and anyone who doesn’t want a library membership can use their tax savings on something they do want. Library privatization is better for some and worse for none.

At any rate, definitely not a lefty. He's right or center right libertarian, he's just not obviously stupid at first glance. He didn't write that "argument" against public libraries, and there's no doubt he can see what;s wrong with imagining tax savings showing up as discretionary cash in poor people's pockets for them to spend on a public service or community project, but that doesn't make him leftwing. (Here's a genuine leftwing take on Brennan: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/bleeding-heart-libertarians-jason-brennan-voting-democracy/)

And to bring things around to Trump: It's easy to be led by experience to associate rightwing anything with idiocy, for the same reason it's easy to associate intelligence and science with leftwing anything
and - here's the catch - vice versa,
but it's a mistake. Trump is in over his head, his administration is a venal shitpile of short-horizon imbeciles and bigots, and if the Republican Party succeeds in establishing fascist government in the US he'll be a frontman rather than a bigman - but there will be bigmen. And they will be very smart guys.

 

[pjdude1219]

At any rate, definitely not a lefty. He's right or center right libertarian, he's just not obviously stupid at first glance. He didn't write that "argument" against public libraries, and there's no doubt he can see what;s wrong with imagining tax savings showing up as discretionary cash in poor people's pockets for them to spend on a public service or community project, but that doesn't make him leftwing. (Here's a genuine leftwing take on Brennan: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/bleeding-heart-libertarians-jason-brennan-voting-democracy/)

and again your only defense is to rely on the one true scotsman fallacy. this is someone who ideintifies as a left libertarian and yet you go nope hes not. again you just declare everybody you dont like as not a real left libertarian. maybe its time you dont rely on logical fallacies and admit the problem is the the ideology. ive read some of the jacobins writings on brennan its how i found out about him. your argument here proves my point not your that left libertarianism is still a rightwing ideology focused on propping up the abuses of naked capitalism.

for fucks sake the man advocated for a universal basic income but since he makes your ideology look bad he has to be evil and therefore a rightwinger.

Once again your omission of basic information and inability to punctuate impose guesswork on the reader you abuse.

oh cry me a river. you get called on your bullshit and you rely as always personal attacks. poor baby had to some research. to bad it never makes you actually think. you know what your problem is? you subscribe to an ideology that encourages sociopathy and think you better than everyone because of it... hint your not. try being something other than a petualant child ice. you've never grown past a teenagers angst and thinking their the center of the universe. and i'd get angry but their no point you not worth it as ive said before attacks on grammar are done by people who know they dont have an argument. so please continue your personal attacks and ad hominums its all you got. you cant actually defend your positions. if you could you actually would instead on rely on insults.

do you have anything other than personal attacks against people who disagree with you. you arent interested in real debate but in pontificating.

 

[iceaura]

for fucks sake the man advocated for a universal basic income

And that is his one and only even potentially left position (depends on how he pays for it).

ive read some of the jacobins writings on brennan its how i found out about him

Then you read your sources, as well as mine, tell you he's not a lefty.

this is someone who ideintifies as a left libertarian and yet you go nope hes not.

I know for a fact he's not left - he has written entire books of rightwing analysis, had his speaking tours financed by rightwing think tanks, been featured on rightwing media, and so forth. How he identifies himself I don't really care, and I have only your claim for that anyway.

again you just declare everybody you dont like as not a real left libertarian.

Plus a half dozen links and observations and specific characteristics, to support the declaration, in this case.

do you have anything other than personal attacks against people who disagree with you.

Reread your last post. Cross out everything that's a personal attack, and everything that provides no information or argument relevant to the thread, and everything that is difficult to read for meaning because you don't have the common courtesy to punctuate. Here's what you'd have left:

for fucks sake the man advocated for a universal basic income but since he makes your ideology look bad he has to be evil and therefore a rightwinger.

That's it. And it's wrong: I don't think that guy is particularly evil, and he can only make his ideology look bad - not mine. Like this: https://www.libertarianism.org/media/around-web/how-cronyism-is-hurting-economy

Meanwhile, his relevance to a Trump thread is pretty tangential, although he had one of the quickest reactions to the Trump win (he had his take already thought through, in book form) and the Trump guys and libertarian dumbass crowd - who write and think pretty much like our own pajama dude here (http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/11/1...n-voters-are-dumb-according-to-jason-brennan/) - all thought he was a lefty.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

no one commenting about the tapes ?

 

[spidergoat]

no one commenting about the tapes ?

Add breaking campaign finance laws to his list of crimes, right after collusion with Russia and kidnapping.

 

[pjdude1219]

Looks like left-libertarians, who have problems with the private property,

left libertarians dont have a problem with private property they exalt just like you do.

want to gain the word "libertarian" for themselves. What I name "libertarian" is what is described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States which mentions only for completeness that "libertarian socialist intellectuals Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others argue that the term "libertarianism" is considered a synonym for social anarchism by the international community and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free-market ideology." I have not seen something similar, at least in Germany libertarian is used as an anglicism with the American pro-free-marked meaning.

they dont want it for them selves it is the actual orginal political meaning of the word before rightwing free market extremist stole the label to help themselves by linking themselves with liberalism. the actual original meaning refers to believers of free will in theological debates.

 

[pjdude1219]

And that is his one and only even potentially left position (depends on how he pays for it).

Then you read your sources, as well as mine, tell you he's not a lefty.

I never claimed he is a left winger. the only time i even claim close to stating he was lefty is when i got tired of your usual dismissing anything that disagrees with you as wrong ,because your incapable of accepting anything that isn't 100% in line with your thinking as valid, and argued with you based on his support of UBI. i dont think he is a lefty. he is a left libertarian and there fore a right winger as far as im concerned. the idea that left libertarians are left wingers is your belief not mine.

I know for a fact he's not left - he has written entire books of rightwing analysis, had his speaking tours financed by rightwing think tanks, been featured on rightwing media, and so forth.

well yeah he is libertarian and there fore a righty. a good portion of "left" libertarians post on rightwing libertarian sites because gosh darn it their right wingers. Rodrick T Long and Kevin Carson to name a couple more.

How he identifies himself I don't really care,

hardly surprising, it doesnt matter what anyone thinks only what you decided they think and are. that is the cornerstone of most of your arguments if they can be called that.

and I have only your claim for that anyway.

than try doing some research.

Plus a half dozen links and observations and specific characteristics, to support the declaration, in this case.

only if we accept your interpertation of them. I don't. you posting links that agree with my argument that he is a right winger pushing libertarian nonsense dont prove your claim he isnt a left libertarian.

Reread your last post. Cross out everything that's a personal attack,

attacks on your ideas are not attacks against you. if i say what your saying is bs thats on the idea not you. learn some disassciociation.

and everything that provides no information or argument relevant to the thread, and everything that is difficult to read for meaning because you don't have the common courtesy to punctuate.

more whining and personal attacks what a surprise. a typical ice aura post. its no wonder so many people have you on ignore and think your an asshole.

That's it. And it's wrong: I don't think that guy is particularly evil, and he can only make his ideology look bad - not mine. Like this: https://www.libertarianism.org/media/around-web/how-cronyism-is-hurting-economy

i had alot more your just intellectually and emotionally incapable of admiting to anything that proves you wrong. just look at your whining in the gun control argument where you claimed multiple supreme court justices didnt understand constitutional law because they disagreed with you. anyone who disagrees with as far as your concerned is incapable of understanding things. its a serious failing if your incapable of acknowledging anyone else arguments validity.

 

[iceaura]

I never claimed he is a left winger.

You claimed he was a left libertarian. Attend to the word "left", one of the two words in that term.
One has to be left to be a left libertarian. It's a dictionary thing - words have meaning, that kind of context.

you posting links that agree with my argument that he is a right winger pushing libertarian nonsense dont prove your claim he isnt a left libertarian.

Uh, yes, they do. Note the words "right" and "left" - they are mutually exclusive categories. English really is a useful language, once you get to know it.

well yeah he is libertarian and there fore a righty

Except for the lefty ones.

a good portion of "left" libertarians post on rightwing libertarian sites because gosh darn it their right wingers.

If they are right wingers they cannot be left wingers, no matter how they describe themselves. See how that works?

attacks on your ideas are not attacks against you.

And attacks on me are not attacks on my ideas.
Here is a partial copy of the purely personal attacks in your latest - not all the personal bs, just the ones completely empty of any relevance to "ideas" on this thread, so removing them would not affect any arguments about "ideas" you may have posted:

hardly surprising, it doesnt matter what anyone thinks only what you decided they think and are. that is the cornerstone of most of your arguments if they can be called that.
if i say what your saying is bs thats on the idea not you. learn some disassciociation.
more whining and personal attacks what a surprise. a typical ice aura post. its no wonder so many people have you on ignore and think your an asshole.
i had alot more your just intellectually and emotionally incapable of admiting to anything that proves you wrong. just look at your whining in the gun control argument where you claimed multiple supreme court justices didnt understand constitutional law because they disagreed with you. anyone who disagrees with as far as your concerned is incapable of understanding things. its a serious failing if your incapable of acknowledging anyone else arguments validity.

That's a majority of your typing in that post, completely wasted.

So: thread topic? Trump is now tweeting in all caps. Step by step he is destroying the legitimacy of the Presidency and Executive Branch, and consolidating his hold on those Congressmen and voters entrained by the sunk costs of their earlier acquiescence. Meridian approaches.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Add breaking campaign finance laws to his list of crimes, right after collusion with Russia and kidnapping.

prostitution is illegal in the usa ?

can trumps ex wife now sue him ?

he will need to prove where the money came from to pay her and to declare if he paid tax on it.

 

[Schmelzer]

Some interesting article about the Helsinki meeting from the Saker: http://thesaker.is/the-putin-trump-helsinki-summit-the-action-is-in-the-reaction/

It starts with repeating what I mentioned here too about the usual pro-Russian evaluation of the meeting - it gave no substantial results at all, and nobody has expected that it gives anything, given that the US is non-agreement capable at least since Obama time, and this became even worse in Trump time because of Trump's weakness in comparison with the deep state and the globalists (neocons). Other points where I fully agree with him is about the non-existence of US diplomacy, and that (given the absence of any results) the anti-Trump hysteria is going completely banana about nothing.

An interesting point is a hypothesis of why the Russians agreed at all to meet Trump, given that nothing could be expected: "Because they correctly evaluated the consequences of this meeting."