The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

was the empire about to crumble ? most would say no it wasn't....
soo...what are you really saying ?

I said what I said, namely "Times of falling empires are very dangerous times." I did not say that there are no other dangerous times, as the times of the height of evil empires.

If you would pay attention to the areas of ignorance I point out - which you can verify for yourself, by introspection -
-and then learn to treat with suspicion the sources who have played on that ignorance to sell you on the bullshit I have helpfully marked out for you - (most recently, Trump's Constitutional powers and proper actions being curbed by a "deep State") -
you might find more worth than you bargain for.
Meanwhile: If you ever discover what a fool you've been played for, by the US marketing pros, you can't say you weren't warned.

Nice try. That would be something worth to think about if what you write would be more than "you are stupid" claims, but supported with evidence. But up to now, it is the same I know from the communist propaganda of my childhood. At that time, I was also told that I should not look Western TV because they are playing me and do this in a very clever way. I have nonetheless preferred to get the information I can get completely, and think about which information is the most reliable myself. And I don't plan to whine "I have not been warned" anyway.

 

[iceaura]

But up to now, it is the same I know from the communist propaganda of my childhood.

You overlearned. Your childhood had no US racism, or fascist movements rising in a democracy. You had no actual journalism, or the sign of freedom that is pop culture and bad movies the elites despise as not real "culture".

I have nonetheless preferred to get the information I can get completely, and think about which information is the most reliable myself

You don't do that.
You specifically and explicitly do not gather information - it's what you most glaringly lack, and when this is pointed out you declare that you do not need it.
Instead, you evaluate what you assume - in ignorance - are equivalently competing propaganda feeds, and evaluate them according to preconceptions formed - in almost complete ignorance - from various personal experiences and some theory you found enlightening about them.

That is why you regard Trump's wall as a sign of creditable isolationism instead of an act of war, for example.

 

[Schmelzer]

Your childhood had no US racism, or fascist movements rising in a democracy. You had no actual journalism, or the sign of freedom that is pop culture and bad movies the elites despise as not real "culture".

So what? After 1989 I had access to democracy and actual journalism (at that time there existed such a thing in the West). And I had access to Western pop culture even earlier.

You don't do that. You specifically and explicitly do not gather information - it's what you most glaringly lack, and when this is pointed out you declare that you do not need it.
Instead, you evaluate what you assume - in ignorance - are equivalently competing propaganda feeds, and evaluate them according to preconceptions formed - in almost complete ignorance - from various childhood experiences and some theory you found enlightening about them.

As usual, empty speculation about things which, at best, you cannot even know. Essentially, you have had experiences with presenting information here, with the result that I have obviously read it and even written refutations like https://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/Basu.pdf Your visible reaction was to stop presenting information.

Of course, in the days of the information revolution, I have to make choices what to read. And this is something based on my interests. For example, I'm not that much interested in US domestic policy, and would not be interested at all in it if most of it would not have (unfortunately) consequences for the rest of the world.

That is why you regard Trump's wall as a sign of creditable isolationism instead of an act of war, for example.

Protecting a border is certainly not an act of war. This is simply basic international law.

 

[iceaura]

After 1989 I had access to democracy and actual journalism

Too late, apparently.

Essentially, you have had experiences with presenting information here, with the result that I have obviously read it and even written refutations

Did you read even that one example? Hard to tell.
You posted bs from some "libertarian" ideological stance (in which, for example, you asserted that part time child labor would inevitably break the stability of a suboptimal child labor equilibrium, therefore such equilibria did not exist - no matter what actual researchers and evidence supported analysis revealed). That is not refutation.

Meanwhile, your explicit, direct, even defended, refusals to gather information, recognize it, or become informed by it, litter this forum in many threads. You have explicitly stated that you don't need information about Hillary Clinton, climate change, animal migration, US racism, or - here - Donald Trump's criminal behavior and fascist Party support, to form your opinions and render judgments on what you presume is propaganda. Information just gets in your way.

Protecting a border is certainly not an act of war. This is simply basic international law.

Building a barrier wall against incoming invasion and stationing soldiers along it is an act of war.

In Trump's case, part of the war is intranational - the further militarization of the US. His expansion of "Homeland Security" has removed several Constitutional protections from the majority of the US citizenry - everyone within a hundred miles of a US border has lost their Fourth Amendment protections, for example. That's 2/3 of the population, and at least 4/5 of Trump's electoral opponents.

 

[iceaura]

Meanwhile:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/feds-find-money-for-national-park-site-tied-to-trump-hotel

The GSA pays for the National Park Service to run the building’s clock tower for visits by the general public. The tower initially closed to the public after the shutdown started. The GSA noticed then that the deal under which the park service staffs the site had expired, and renewed it, and the park service reopened the tower this week, the agency said.

The GSA, which helps other federal agencies operate, said it was using money from its building fund to keep the tower open and staffed.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblo...um=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+tpm-news+(TPMNews)

Of course, budgeting a few parks rangers to main this clock tower is more a symbol of the problem than the end of the world in itself. But there’s every reason to believe that the whole country’s foreign policy is being harnessed to the President’s personal financial interests as well.

 

[Schmelzer]

Too late, apparently.

No. Of course, many people are unable to change their ideology at that age, I have changed some key elements even several times, given the power of the better arguments. The difference between journalism in the West and "journalism" in the East was obvious and big. The difference between journalism in the West at that time and now is also comparably big, I would say, roughly one-half of the difference between communist journalism and the Western one at that time. The journalism from Russia I read today (BTW mainly in the net, not from mass media) is, instead, of a quality comparable to Western journalism at that time, maybe even better.

Did you read even that one example? Hard to tell.
You posted bs from some "libertarian" ideological stance (in which, for example, you asserted that part time child labor would inevitably break the stability of a suboptimal child labor equilibrium, therefore such equilibria did not exist - no matter what actual researchers and evidence supported analysis revealed). That is not refutation.

This already shows that your "you have not read" rants are nothing but cheap polemics. Of course, it is easy to see that I have quoted the paper, and you can check the quotes. No other papers quoting them have been part of the discussion, thus, the probability of having only copypasted a quote in some other paper is essentially zero. But for cheap polemics, you use it nonetheless.
The main argument of the paper is a theoretical one, thus, has nothing to do with actual researchers and evidence. So it can be refuted by such a purely theoretical construction too. The only relevant practical question is if in many real circumstances part time child labor is, for whatever reasons, forbidden, and only full time child labor allowed. One can, of course, imagine such situations. But for very common forms of child labor, namely the labor in the family business, it is non-existing.

Meanwhile, your explicit, direct, even defended, refusals to gather information, recognize it, or become informed by it, litter this forum in many threads. You have explicitly stated that you don't need information about Hillary Clinton, climate change, animal migration, US racism, or - here - Donald Trump's criminal behavior and fascist Party support, to form your opinions and render judgments on what you presume is propaganda. Information just gets in your way.

Feel free to provide evidence. Your claims are, at best, oversimplifications. For example, I don't need information about climate change related to questions where I do not question the mainstream position. Which is a large part of it, which includes the claim that there is some warming as well as the question if it is human-made. Maybe it is, maybe not, this particular question is not interesting for me, given that I disagree with the apocalytic scenarios in other questions. Similar points are about the other questions. Say, Hillary. I do not need information about her body count, because I do not question the mainstream in this question. Those who claim this may have a point, maybe not, it is not relevant because Hillary is known to be an evil person given what is known about her actions in Libya and Syria. If there is information about relevant questions, and even near relevant questions, I do not reject them.
It is your problem that if you provide some information, it is mainly irrelevant information. Or quite weak, say, ad hominem about the sources of a given bit of information.

Building a barrier wall against incoming invasion and stationing soldiers along it is an act of war. In Trump's case, part of the war is intranational - the further militarization of the US.

No. It is legitimate preparation and defense of the own country. It may be, of course, something which is done during a war too, but an "act of war" is something different, it has to be an action which violates the border and justifies the use of military power for self-defense from the other side. But, ok, if you use metaphorical speech, you can, of course, also name my posting an act of war.

His expansion of "Homeland Security" has removed several Constitutional protections from the majority of the US citizenry - everyone within a hundred miles of a US border has lost their Fourth Amendment protections, for example. That's 2/3 of the population, and at least 4/5 of Trump's electoral opponents.

Ok, but you name it, expansion. Trump is simply expanding what existed already before. From the point of view of missing civil rights, the US is openly fascist at least since the PATRIOT act. Has Obama rejected it? Not? That's all I have to know about Obama to classify him as a fascist regarding the question of civil rights.
BTW, the removal of protections of the constitution is domestic policy, and domestic policy is not war. And not a really interesting field for me. I will never enter that country anyway, far too much a dangerous police state.

 

[sculptor]

Well:
I'm disappointed!
I had a bad feeling when Trump brought on a known Iran hating hawk like Bolton.
And
Bolton is redefining what "Trump really meant" when he said we were leaving Syria.
We have a long history in this country of military leaders and hawks ignoring the CIC.
The only way to control that insanity is by issuing a direct order----------
Is Trump up to the challenge faced by Truman?
It seems that it is one thing to be called the CIC, and quite another to assume the mantle of command.

 

[iceaura]

No. It is legitimate preparation and defense of the own country.

The "anarchist" justifies armed fortifications and military defense of borders, once again in ignorance of US politics.
It is not "legitimate". It is an escalation of military and paramilitary conflict with the countries to the south of the US in the Americas - a problem that began growing, essentially, with Reagan's drug wars (including Iran Contra).

Ok, but you name it, expansion. Trump is simply expanding what existed already before.

Yes. He continues the post-Reagan Republican Party foreign policy. That - if you have forgotten - is use of the military in service of private corporate interests globally. This includes invasion, bombing, and covert operations against foreign governments in furtherance of US based private capitalist corporate interests. Fascism.

The journalism from Russia I read today (BTW mainly in the net, not from mass media) is, instead, of a quality comparable to Western journalism at that time, maybe even better.

That does not explain your gullibility in the face of US wingnut agitprop.

For example, I don't need information about climate change related to questions where I do not question the mainstream position.
- - -
Say, Hillary. I do not need information about her - - -

You make claims not only false but idiotic, often word for word parrotings of standard US wingnut media feeds. Then you reject information provided to correct your mistaken presumptions. What is anyone suppose to think?

The only relevant practical question is if in many real circumstances part time child labor is, for whatever reasons, forbidden, and only full time child labor allowed. One can, of course, imagine such situations.

One could also read about them - with concrete examples - in the paper involved. Or have run across them in one's education and experience generally.

But for very common forms of child labor, namely the labor in the family business, it is non-existing.

But for the also common circumstances analyzed in the paper you were supposedly considering, it is existing. And your response and analysis contained no acknowledgment of that. Which is why I noted that you did not appear to have read it - quote mining for strawman arguments does not necessarily involve actual reading.

So claiming that you would know better and post more sensibly if you were better informed is giving you the benefit of large doubts. Say "thank you", and quit digging.

 

[iceaura]

I'm disappointed!
I had a bad feeling when Trump brought on a known Iran hating hawk like Bolton.
And
Bolton is redefining what "Trump really meant" when he said we were leaving Syria.

Bolton has been 0n board with Trump since before the election, and part of Republican fascism for many years. He was on the short list of likely Trump appointees from the moment Trump won the Republican nomination. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tration/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d10affb145e0
I keep asking: why do you believe that what Trump says means anything? Why do you quote him as evidence of US policy or direction of governance?
Why do you treat what he says as if its meaning in English were an indication of strategy or tactics or policy or ideological stance or anything of the kind?
You've been living under a rock for thirty years?

Is Trump up to the challenge faced by Truman?
It seems that it is one thing to be called the CIC, and quite another to assume the mantle of command.

What would possess anyone to even consider, for five seconds, that Trump was "up to the challenge" of anything involved with the Presidency of the United States? That he was even aware of such things, let alone interested? That governing the US was on his radar, part of his ambition, a task or role or job he had ever considered performing?

Seriously: what in hell has gone wrong with the American "conservative" that they can't see who Trump is or what the Republican Party is doing?

 

[iceaura]

This almost gets its own thread, but in line with the rest of the shutdown problems there is this one fairly major issue first noticed about a year ago:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...or-mistakes-republican-democrat-a8230036.html

Legislation often contains a few errors, but not of this magnitude, experts have been quick to point out.

The glitches are not just typos. A lot of the discrepancies revolve around actual tax policy questions where there is disagreement between Democrats and Republicans, meaning the errors will be much harder to fix, according to John Wonderlich. Mr Wonderlich is the executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit which advocates for open government.


“The amount of errors and unintended consequences in the tax bill is far beyond normal,” he told The Independent. He said that eleventh-hour changes to the legislation and the non-transparent process used to pass it contributed to this result.

Thing is: Trump's shutdown cripples the IRS, during not only refund season (refunds are paid from the general fund, so they are technically impossible during a shutdown - some folks are scrambling for workarounds, but the language of the law is pretty clear), but during peak dispute and problem resolution season.

This botch of a piece of legislation is in the running for the worst written Federal Law ever enacted - the details of the writing being critical in something like tax code - and the crunch time for dealing with the rollout of it sees 4/5 of the IRS on furlough.
(Republicans can't write sound laws, for some reason. I blame the inability to empathize beyond personal experience - it blocks them from seeing how the words will be read by others).

And this mess is going to carry into the Census. The US Federal Government is only a year away from having to take a census of the US population.

Fascists do not make the trains run on time.

 

[sculptor]

non-transparent process

says it all

 

[Schmelzer]

The "anarchist" justifies armed fortifications and military defense of borders, once again in ignorance of US politics.

I do not justify it, I simply do not accept nonsensical accusations. As an anarchist, I have nothing to object if somebody fortifies his property. This would be the right of every person to have borders and doors with locks on his property, as well as of every community. I'm quite positive about gated communities. The objection against such large "gated communities" as the whole US is that such large communities cannot be based on consent of all the people living there, which is the essential difference to a small gated community. (Moreover, I simply corrected an error from your side about international law. Border protection is not an act of war in international law.)

It is not "legitimate". It is an escalation of military and paramilitary conflict with the countries to the south of the US in the Americas - a problem that began growing, essentially, with Reagan's drug wars (including Iran Contra).

Supporting the contras was, indeed, an act of war against Nicaragua. As well as many other things the US is doing now. But protecting the border is not.

Yes. He continues the post-Reagan Republican Party foreign policy.

Not only Republican Party, but also Democratic Party foreign policy. Simply American foreign policy. And it is essentially not Trump doing this, but those "adults in the room".

That does not explain your gullibility in the face of US wingnut agitprop.

There is no need to explain your fantasies.

You make claims not only false but idiotic, often word for word parrotings of standard US wingnut media feeds. Then you reject information provided to correct your mistaken presumptions.

No. You have not even recognized that the standard "denial" is based on either there is no climate change or it is not caused by humans. My line of argumentation is completely different. It is that warming has, in general, if slow enough and not too large, even positive effects. Information relevant for this line of argumentation I do not reject.

Please support your claims about the Basu paper with quotes. Without them, it makes no sense to discuss them. The key result of my paper remains valid anyway. The problem exists only if one ignores, in the theoretical model, the possibility of part-time child labor. Which makes the whole Basu paper worthless. Even if there may be situations where only full-time child labor would be profitable but part-time labor not (a dubious thesis) the solution of the remaining problem would be to give children the legal right to switch to part-time for the same pay per time.

 

[iceaura]

No. You have not even recognized that the standard "denial" is based on either there is no climate change or it is not caused by humans.

You are posting this year's wingnut media feed on climate change, almost word for word.

The problem exists only if one ignores, in the theoretical model, the possibility of part-time child labor. Which makes the whole Basu paper worthless.

It doesn't make it worthless. It makes it directly relevant to the common situation of excluded part time child labor.

Even if there may be situations where only full-time child labor would be profitable but part-time labor not (a dubious thesis) the solution of the remaining problem would be to give children the legal right to switch to part-time for the same pay per time.

There are many different solutions, suitable in different circumstances. All of them involve government intervention with an economy trapped in suboptimal equilibrium by market forces.

But protecting the border is not.

The wall is.

Not only Republican Party, but also Democratic Party foreign policy.

Nope. They differ. Note the Congressional votes on these various warmongering efforts, military buildups, etc.

And it is essentially not Trump doing this, but those "adults in the room".

It is Trump doing this. Other Presidents have curbed and defied the generals - the President is Commander in Chief, after all.
The situation is unusual, though - most fascist demagogues who rise to power have a base in the military command pre-arranged. Trump never bothered, possibly because he was and is almost completely incompetent at governance. Dunning-Kruger explained this phenomenon.

 

[iceaura]

A down note, but an obvious truth - Trump has been coasting on Obama's adequacy, especially economically, and it's not going to last:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2018/12/24/if-you-think-that-was-bad/

Authoritarians don't have any strategy for digging themselves out of a hole except to do everything they're doing, but harder. Changing course is not a thing they're emotionally capable of doing. Authoritarianism is an endless string of doubling-downs until they're removed from power.

 

[Schmelzer]

You are posting this year's wingnut media feed on climate change, almost word for word.

1.) Prove it with evidence. 2.) Even if you succeed, it does not matter much. Instead, it shows to me that some other people you name "wingnut" have reached similar conclusions.

It doesn't make it worthless. It makes it directly relevant to the common situation of excluded part time child labor.

That it is common is your claim. The paper is worthless because it makes the wrong suggestions, namely that in some situations one has to forbid child labor completely (with the known harmful effects for those so poor that they depend on child labor), when all that has to be forbidden to solve the problem is full-time child labor without the right for the children to switch to part-time if they wish.

There are many different solutions, suitable in different circumstances. All of them involve government intervention with an economy trapped in suboptimal equilibrium by market forces.

That child labor has, in reality, such a problem remains a hypothesis. Basu has only shown a theoretical, imaginable possibility, and forgotten to consider a simple way out of it. It is not even clear if this theoretical scenario happens in real circumstances too. And, even more, if the possibility of part-time child labor solves this problem in these yet only hypothetical scenarios.

The wall is.

Does Trump plan to build it on the Mexican side of the border? If not, what is the act of war here?

Nope. They differ. Note the Congressional votes on these various warmongering efforts, military buildups, etc.

There will be always some minor differences in style and so on. The main points remained unchanged.

It is Trump doing this. Other Presidents have curbed and defied the generals - the President is Commander in Chief, after all.

Fine to hear that the problem with Trump is not what he wants to do, but that he allows the "adults in the room" to do what they like. (I have to admit that I did not expect this from iceaura.

 

[iceaura]

Instead, it shows to me that some other people you name "wingnut" have reached similar conclusions.

As I keep saying - you reject information.

1.) Prove it with evidence.

Done, long ago. I have linked you to several items - such as the wingnut disseminated quotes and positions of the Republican chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee. Here's another: https://www.nationalreview.com/maga...mith-climate-change-texas-rep-friend-science/

That it is common is your claim.

Drawn from observation. And that of the researchers in the field, drawn from observation and theory both. That it cannot exist, on the basis of your armchair theorizing of how the world must be, is your claim.

There will be always some minor differences in style and so on.

And votes, enacted policies, starting of wars, taxation of the wealthy, freedom of individual citizens, support for scientific research other than weaponry, health care and environmental protection, and so forth. Political stuff. Governance.
You put Al Gore in the Presidency in 2000 - as the voters did, but the Supreme Court overruled - and there is no invasion of Iraq. There may not even have been a 9/11 strike - Gore was paying attention to the briefings.

Fine to hear that the problem with Trump is not what he wants to do, but that he allows the "adults in the room" to do what they like.

The problems with what Trump wants to do remain. They don't go away because he is weak and incompetent when dealing with military officers - which is a serious problem itself: Reagan ended up with some whackjob Marine launching the US crack epidemic from the White House to finance regime change in Nicaragua.
And none of these are problems we would have had with Clinton.

 

[Schmelzer]

As I keep saying - you reject information.

Your "information" is not reasonable information, it is cheap namecalling.

Done, long ago. I have linked you to several items - such as the wingnut disseminated quotes and positions of the Republican chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee. Here's another: https://www.nationalreview.com/maga...mith-climate-change-texas-rep-friend-science/

Sorry, but I was unable to identify in this article anything related in one way or another to my position about climate change.
Evidence for me posting "almost word for word" looks different. A quote from me, together with a quote from some "wingnut", both with links.

Drawn from observation. And that of the researchers in the field, drawn from observation and theory both. That it cannot exist, on the basis of your armchair theorizing of how the world must be, is your claim.

Your own "observation" has failed every time I was able to check it (and that means a lot of time because you "observe" a lot of things about me). And there is no evidence for that from other researchers, so this is also only your fantasy. Feel free to present any evidence from other researchers, you know, some interesting quotes supporting your point together with a link to the source.

And votes, enacted policies, starting of wars, taxation of the wealthy, freedom of individual citizens, support for scientific research other than weaponry, health care and environmental protection, and so forth. Political stuff. Governance.

As explained, I do not care about domestic policies. In starting wars the Democrats are as good as the Reps. To count the important ones - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Kosovo - I count a 3:2 advantage for the Democrats. If we add the "Operation Storm", the genocide against the Serbs in Krajina by the Croatian fascists, then it becomes 4:2. Moreover, the only war among them all which could be legitimated by international law was the first Iraq war, last but not least there was aggression by Iraq against Kuwait. And if we restrict ourselves to the worst thing, pure terrorist wars without any legitimation at all, then this is, with Syria, Libya, and Krajina, a pure Democratic hobby.

The problems with what Trump wants to do remain. They don't go away because he is weak and incompetent when dealing with military officers - which is a serious problem itself: Reagan ended up with some whackjob Marine launching the US crack epidemic from the White House to finance regime change in Nicaragua.
And none of these are problems we would have had with Clinton.

Clinton would have done what the military liked, so there would not have been any conflict, like the one which ended with Mattis firing. So, from some point of view, there would have been fewer problems with such US-internal infights, which seems to be important for you. For me, I prefer such internal conflicts, even if the outcome is not the good, peaceful one, to a US leadership unified in warmongering

 

[iceaura]

Your "information" is not reasonable information, it is cheap namecalling.

Except for the links and stuff? It isn't namecalling, cheap or otherwise.

Your own "observation" has failed every time I was able to check it

No, it hasn't. You are not able to perform such checks, for one thing.
Look at you not able to check the latest:

Sorry, but I was unable to identify in this article anything related in one way or another to my position about climate change.

I was - easily. As with the dozen other links I posted for you - all of which you dismissed by some kind of "people sometimes think alike" argument, as if we were supposed to believe you had independently derived the the entire Republican Party line of climate change denial bullshit word for word.

Nobody with information is going to believe that. Not even if you believe it.

As explained, I do not care about domestic policies.

You have many excuses for not having the information you need before making the claims and assertions you make.
Like this silly bs:

In starting wars the Democrats are as good as the Reps. To count the important ones - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Kosovo - I count a 3:2 advantage for the Democrats.

They aren't.
You can't count. You don't have the information you need. Not only are you comparing completely different scales of operation, separating auxiliary conflicts from their origins, and so forth, but: You don't know who started those "wars", you aren't counting most of the "wars" that were started by the US, and quite possibly you don't know what a "war" is in the first place.
I handed you a Wikipedia list of US military involvements - you didn't bother. In the past I have handed you lists of CIA covert subversions and terrorist operations - you ignored them. You lack information. You post US wingnut agitprop.

Clinton would have done what the military liked, so there would not have been any conflict, like the one which ended with Mattis firing

Unlikely. That would not have been her standard behavior - that faction of the US military does not like the Clintons, either one. The Clintons haven't been cooperating with them, enough.
Did you know that?
Meanwhile: Mattis was not fired by Trump. (Mattis was fired by Obama - an example of a President defying the deep State du jour, right?)
Why do you make these mistakes?
One way an observer can tell where you are getting your bs from, is by cataloguing common errors - especially blatant ones. Good reasoning from information can align people's thinking coincidently, but a common string of obvious mistakes has a common source that is not in the facts. (You should have checked such odd news: Trump, like many cowards in command, does not personally fire people as a rule - occasionally as a humiliation tactic, but even then not in person or formally but by tweet. There's no tweet firing Mattis, and there is nobody who could have fired him except Trump).

For me, I prefer such internal conflicts, even if the outcome is not the good, peaceful one, to a US leadership unified in warmongering

There's an article in recent Harper's Magazine by a French guy with that take - it appears to be common in people who don't know much about US politics (like you, he justifies his having opinions without info by claiming to not care.) The common delusion seems to be that the Republican Party doesn't matter, Trump is only going to break the stuff you guys don't like, and the net will be to take the oppressively omnipresent US down a peg, so everybody except the US will be better off.

Trump's first major act as President was to expand and intensify the drone war, and restore it to CIA secrecy and control as under W.

Living and learning about fascism, in the world's foremost military power.

 

[Schmelzer]

Except for the links and stuff? It isn't namecalling, cheap or otherwise.

If there are links and stuff, then it is another question. Then it starts to depend on the content. It is nice to see that you have started now with giving some more information. I hope this will remain so.

No, it hasn't. You are not able to perform such checks, for one thing.

It is easy to perform such checks if you write about me, what I think. If your accusation is a simple "you are stupid", it is, in principle, impossible to check, because even stupid people think they are not stupid. But when you start to make particular claims about what I think, it is easy to check, given I know what I think.

I was - easily. As with the dozen other links I posted for you - all of which you dismissed by some kind of "people sometimes think alike" argument, as if we were supposed to believe you had independently derived the the entire Republican Party line of climate change denial bullshit word for word.

A nice example of how you are usually completely wrong about what I think. As usual, you never give a link to the place where I have written "word for word" what you claim. And you have, also, not quoted the article with something which I would support "word for word". Except, in this case, for the general idea that one would better follow the real scientific results instead of some green fanatics. But this is something where I have not seen a conflict, as far as I remember you would also support science against some fanatics, not? At least you have not yet openly admitted that you, instead, prefer to follow alarmists against the established science.

Whatever, if some Reps are in favor of science, and you in favor of alarmists, then, indeed, I would be on the side of science. Your point? Not really. Even if you would, you would name it differently, you would name the alarmists positions science, and what this guy names science you would name denial. So, my quite general support for science would not be sufficient to guess on which side I am. I would have to look at the content, to find out, which side really defends science against some anti-scientific mob.

There is a lot about some content too. The content is about "a controversial study saying that the “pause” in the rise of global temperatures between 1998 and 2012 never happened, even though the hiatus had been acknowledged by the world’s leading climate authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". I have never seen this study, no opinion about its correctness, and, more important, I do not bother about it, because it is irrelevant for my own argumentation. Because it is about how much warming there is, and this is not a question I argue about.

Nobody with information is going to believe that. Not even if you believe it.

You can't count. You don't have the information you need. Not only are you comparing completely different scales of operation, separating auxiliary conflicts from their origins, and so forth, but: You don't know who started those "wars", you aren't counting most of the "wars" that were started by the US, and quite possibly you don't know what a "war" is in the first place.
I handed you a Wikipedia list of US military involvements - you didn't bother. In the past I have handed you lists of CIA covert subversions and terrorist operations - you ignored them. You lack information.

The usual big rant "you are stupid", without anything additional. That I referred only to 'the important ones" shows, btw, that I'm aware there are more of them. That there are complete lists of US military and CIA involvements I know, everybody knows, if I would link such things I would not even name this giving you some information, but refer to this as "remembering you some elementary Wiki-level knowledge". I decided who started these wars by the simple straightforward criterion - who was president at the time when the open military hostilities started. Which is what matters if it matters who is president.

If you want to tell me that all these operations were deep state operations, planned long ago before the open military conflict started, and the presidents, being mere puppets of the deep state, could not even prevent anything, fine. In this case, I agree, I would not have the information who started the war if it started when Obama was president. But in this case, the whole question makes no sense, because there is no difference who is president, the deep state decides.

That would not have been her standard behavior - that faction of the US military does not like the Clintons, either one. The Clintons haven't been cooperating with them, enough.
Did you know that?

I know for example that the Pentagon has openly sabotaged any agreements Kelly has made with the Russians in Syria. This has gone up to almost demonstratively attacking the encircled Syrian forces in Deir Ezzor in preparation of a powerful IS attack, US airforce as IS airforce, officially by accident. I know of other internal conflicts too. The point of the deep state is not that it is a completely unified force. It is about the results of elections being quite unimportant because many of the important decision-makers are not elected.

Meanwhile: Mattis was not fired by Trump.

He was. He resigned but wanted to stay two months more. But Trump replaced him immediately after his resignation.

One way an observer can tell where you are getting your bs from, is ...

This is obviously all you think about. You get some information and then classify it. This information supports ideas of this side, that information supports ideas from that side. Once you have done this job, it is clear how you answer: "You copy bs from these sources".

The common delusion seems to be that the Republican Party doesn't matter, Trump is only going to break the stuff you guys don't like, and the net will be to take the oppressively omnipresent US down a peg, so everybody except the US will be better off.

This is, indeed, a quite common position outside the US.
With a small difference, namely that people know that the Republican Party matters - that it is part of the swamp, thus, opposes Trump in all those things which many outside the US hope Trump succeeds to break. Trump may, of course, not succeed, if the Republican faction of the globalists is strong enough to prevent this. If the hope that Trump succeeds is a naive delusion or not, future will show. At least up to now, he was already in some parts successful. The Syrian withdrawal (if there will be one or not) will be a test of the power relation now.

 

[iceaura]

He was. He resigned but wanted to stay two months more.

He was not fired. Your claim that he was is another example of your parroting wingnut rhetoric from the standard sources familiar to any American.
And it matters, these continual revisions and concealments - Trump is not the guy you describe, not the guy firing deep Staters and cleaning house. Trump is a fascist demagogue. His only job criterion is loyalty to and protection of himself.

The point of the deep state is not that it is a completely unified force. It is about the results of elections being quite unimportant because many of the important decision-makers are not elected.

The government - the shallow State, the people doing their jobs - is full of appointed officials who make important decisions. That does not make elections unimportant - as W's Iraq War demonstrated, in spectacular fashion.

That I referred only to 'the important ones" shows, btw, that I'm aware there are more of them.

And that you are unable to assess importance. Which was already obvious by your listing of Syria and W's Iraq invasion as equivalent "wars".

I decided who started these wars by the simple straightforward criterion - who was president at the time when the open military hostilities started

You do not have enough information to do that.

If there are links and stuff, then it is another question.

There always have been. You blew them all off, same as you just did with the Wikipedia list I just handed you to go with the past info on CIA and proxy war stuff you've seen in the past.

It is easy to perform such checks if you write about me, what I think

I write about what's visible in your posting here, including your claims for yourself.
Like this:

"I was - easily. As with the dozen other links I posted for you - all of which you dismissed by some kind of "people sometimes think alike" argument, as if we were supposed to believe you had independently derived the the entire Republican Party line of climate change denial bullshit word for word."
A nice example of how you are usually completely wrong about what I think.

I said nothing about what you "think". Why the misrepresentation?

You are dodging an obvious fact: your climate change posting is essentially a parroting of US rightwing corporate media feeds, the stuff generated by the professional think tanks and paid shills, the same as we get from Fox News "experts" and Republican Party politicians. Often it's word for word. It includes the identical blatant errors of reasoning and misrepresentations of fact, the same bogus attacks on the same science and scientists, the same "doubts", the same everything. And nothing else.
You present this professionally contrived media disinformation and propaganda effort as your own, independently derived critique. There's no way that can be so. It isn't even if you think it is - that just makes you a bigger sucker.

With a small difference, namely that people know that the Republican Party matters - that it is part of the swamp, thus, opposes Trump in all those things which many outside the US hope Trump succeeds to break.

Like I said - they seem to think Trump is going to stop breaking things when he gets to their concerns. Ignorant. And in their ignorance, somehow - by incredible coincidence no doubt - buying into the US Republican Party line: that Trump is somehow not Republican, that he is opposed to the established Party swamp.

The Republican Party is trying to put some media distance between Trump and the Republican brand, because Trump is obviously criminal and treasonous and utterly corrupt, and because he is incompetent - his Katrina, his economic crash, his lost war and betrayal of his base, is just a matter of time. The name acquires the attributes of the thing, as all pro marketers know - they remember what it took to scrub W's Presidency from the Party image. But that is media only - meanwhile, in the real world, the tax cuts and military/industrial boondoggles and judiciary packing and expansion of the Security State and so forth proceed apace. The Republican Party has no policy conflict with Trump at all.

It has not opposed Trump. Trump has not opposed it. Trump is the nominated and endorsed and elected Republican President, and his policies so far have been a direct continuation of Reagan and Bush and W's Presidencies - farther down the same bad road, standard post Reagan Republican governance. He has had the full cooperation of the Republican Party in this.