The Trump Presidency

[Tiassa]

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

Not quite, but, y'know, whatever.

 

[Schmelzer]

He was not fired.

Hm. Not quite, but, y'know, whatever. (SCNR)

How you name it does not matter. I have told you what I have read, namely that he resigned giving some date in February or so for leaving his post, and after this Trump decided to replace him immediately. If one of these facts is wrong, tell me about this and give the correct information. How this is named in your Orwellian newspeak community I don't care. I use a language which is anyway foreign to me, and if disagreement with the politically correct language is what makes me an evil user of wingnut rhetorics, fine. I don't care.

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".

Not even this you get right. I listed both among the most important. This does not mean they are equivalent.

You do not have enough information to do that.

I have. The time of the presidency is easily available, and the begin of open military hostilities is what I can take from Wikipedia information about the conflict. However prejudiced in favor of the globalists, they will hardly hide or invent open military hostilities.

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.

Again, Wiki is not new for me, and not even the particular pages about the US wars and the CIA info. BTW, you cannot know if I have read them or not, if I do not comment this. I often read links and find nothing worth to comment. If I comment about the link, I have seen it, and, in case I have not read it in detail, explained why. So, this is the only way you can know that I have not read your link: My answer where I explain why I ignore it. (Say, that I have not changed my position does not mean I have not read the text.)

Thus, most of the claims that I did not read your sources are cheap defamations.

I write about what's visible in your posting here, including your claims for yourself.
I said nothing about what you "think". Why the misrepresentation?

Because if you would judge from what I write you would be able to present evidence, quoting my own posts. You have never been able to do this (at least never done this, then I have objected and asked for evidence that I have made such claims.) So, what you write about what I think are fantasies. And I can easily identify this, given that I know what I think, and with sufficient reliability remember what I have written.

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.

It is not a fact, but simply false. I do not care at all about what most of them discuss - if there is a warming or not, how much of it, and if it is caused by humans. Some of my points are mentioned too, say, that CO2 is useful for plant growth, but parroting means something very different IMHO. Recently I have seen a video where one guy has mentioned beyond this even some other points I have made. But, sorry, not saved the link. But, say, my point that the hysteria requires more clouds and thus more rain, given that H2O is the most important greenhouse gas and CO2 alone is not enough, and that more rain is also good in the average for agriculture, I do not remember to have heard. Not that I would claim some priority, it is a simple idea, but, together with the point that I do not support many of the claims of the deniers, it shows that my arguments are not simply parroting something.

And, most important of all, even if I would parrot something from sources you don't like, it does not make my arguments invalid. It would be only an ad hominem argument against them.

Often it's word for word.

Prove it. You have a straightforward way to prove it - a quote from me, with a link, a quote from the claimed sources, with a link, and they should be equal "word for word" or at least sufficiently close. This should be easy for you, because you have seen all parts of what I ask for - except it is your defamatory fantasy. (Which is, of course, what it is expected to be, given your reputation for such defamations.)

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.

But these "ignorant" observers are, in fact, quite satisfied by the results of US foreign policy during the last two years, results they would not have expected with Clinton or any other Rep candidate as the president. Which is it that matters in their opinion.

The Republican Party has no policy conflict with Trump at all.

Whatever. Except that all the remaining "adults in the room" tried to prevent Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria, and one of them has, in whatever way, even left the room. Bolton continues to openly sabotage it, and probably will succeed, we will see, but there is, of course, no conflict at all. LOL

I would guess, the question if there are, in a completely illegal way, US troops in Syria (where they are considered as occupants and invaders, and will become part of some military conflict if they remain there, certainly with partisans supported by the legal government, possibly with the legal government of Syria, possibly even with Russia or Turkey, is nothing worth to care about. No conflict at all.

 

[iceaura]

Not even this you get right. I listed both among the most important. This does not mean they are equivalent.

You scored them each as "1" war, to count and compare as instances of Democratic or Republican warmongering.
That is treating them as equivalent, exactly. That's what "treating them as equivalent" means - that you did something like that.

The time of the presidency is easily available, and the begin of open military hostilities is what I can take from Wikipedia information about the conflict.

That's not enough.

But these "ignorant" observers are, in fact, quite satisfied by the results of US foreign policy during the last two years, results they would not have expected with Clinton or any other Rep candidate as the president.

Sure. We've established their ignorance, it informed their expectations, now we see they are happy about the rise of fascism in the US and Russia. Apparently they think they are safe from it. One wishes them well - maybe they will be luckier this time than last.

Whatever. Except that all the remaining "adults in the room" tried to prevent Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria, and one of them has, in whatever way, even left the room.

So? That's got nothing to do with a Republican Party policy disagreement.

Bolton continues to openly sabotage it, and probably will succeed, we will see, but there is, of course, no conflict at all.

Bolton is one of Trump's guys.
- - - -

And, most important of all, even if I would parrot something from sources you don't like, it does not make my arguments invalid.

Of course not. They are silly and wrong because they conflict with observed reality in quite foolish ways. This is something you would need information to recognize, though. I'm just pointing out where they came from.

So, what you write about what I think are fantasies.

I don't write about what you think.
- - - -

But, say, my point that the hysteria requires more clouds and thus more rain, given that H2O is the most important greenhouse gas and CO2 alone is not enough, and that more rain is also good in the average for agriculture, I do not remember to have heard.

I do. It's not as common as the claim that more CO2 is good for agriculture, but that's probably because it's more obviously wrongheaded.
And it's taking advantage of ignorance, of course, something to sucker the rubes with.
(More water in the air does not necessarily mean more clouds, more cloud does not necessarily mean more frequent rain, and more rain is not in itself good for agriculture on average. That is the third time, at least, that you have been corrected in that same matter - information you have rejected, preferring to remain ignorant.
Meanwhile, the prediction of more water vapor in the air, amplifying the greenhouse effect, is not "hysteria" but physics. And "hysteria" is one of the wingnut terms you picked up - a marker of your source. )
- - --
Trump is of course reviving and continuing the Reagan, Bush, and W, Republican administration practice of putting corrupt political hacks in charge of all US Federal science and environmental agencies, and cutting research funding in areas where discovery and recognition of physical reality threatens corporate profits.

 

[Schmelzer]

You scored them each as "1" war, to count and compare as instances of Democratic or Republican warmongering.

You have certainly a point that counting wars is something which makes not much sense. And the main reason is that one automatically gives each war a 1 even if they are very different. But you have started this business, I have simply disagreed with your results. But, fine, let's stop counting "starting wars", once it makes no sense.

Then we can return to the place where you objected against my "There will be always some minor differences in style and so on" listing, among a lot of domestic policy items (which are not interesting to me) only " starting of wars", and conclude that there are no interesting differences in foreign policy between Reps and Dems.

now we see they are happy about the rise of fascism in the US and Russia.

No. They are happy to see that the US loses its international power and influence, in a sufficiently fast way, without this leading to war (which is always a danger if a big power loses its power) at least up to now. This is completely neutral about domestic policy issues you name "rise of fascism" in the US and has nothing to do with a rise of fascism in Russia, which exists only in your fantasy.

Of course not. They are silly and wrong because they conflict with observed reality in quite foolish ways. This is something you would need information to recognize, though. I'm just pointing out where they came from.

In other words, you simply refuse to give any counterarguments, except cheap ad hominems. This is a quite strong indication that there are none accessible to you.

I don't write about what you think.

You simply write a lot of things which are simply defamations.

(More water in the air does not mean more clouds, more cloud does not mean more frequent rain, and more rain is not in itself good for agriculture on average. That is the third time, at least, that you have been corrected in that same matter - information you have rejected, preferring to remain ignorant.
Meanwhile, the prediction of more water vapor in the air, amplifying the greenhouse effect, is not "hysteria" but physics. And "hysteria" is one of the wingnut terms you picked up - a marker of your source. )

Meanwhile, I do not doubt that more water vapor in the air is amplifying the greenhouse effect, but simply use this property to conclude that the hysteric scenarios cannot survive without it, thus, have to contain more of this too.

Then, there are of course differences between more water vapor, more clouds, more rain, and good for agriculture. So, none of the items in the list "does mean" any other item in the list. I have recognized this rhetorical trick already earlier, you like it. If somebody claims that, in the average, more A leads to more B, you like to use some very special subset of A which leads to less B and claim you have refuted something. But such special cases do not at all refute that there is a statistical connection.

 

[Write4U]

Then, there are of course differences between more water vapor, more clouds, more rain, and good for agriculture

Who's agriculture? Rainforests? Rice paddies?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"This wall should have been done by all the presidents that preceded me and they all know it. Some of them have told me that we should have done it."
-- Trump, making a claim that all four living former presidents have denied

 

[Write4U]

"This wall should have been done by all the presidents that preceded me and they all know it. Some of them have told me that we should have done it."
-- Trump, making a claim that all four living former presidents have denied

Well, he conveniently forgot to tell everyone that those presidents were sitting on his shoulders at the time they said it.

 

[iceaura]

No. They are happy to see that the US loses its international power and influence, in a sufficiently fast way, without this leading to war (which is always a danger if a big power loses its power) at least up to now.

And they don't care how - the rise of fascism in the world's dominant military power bothers them not at all.
Trump's first major action as President was to expand the drone war and return it to CIA control.

You have certainly a point that counting wars is something which makes not much sense. And the main reason is that one automatically gives each war a 1 even if they are very different. But you have started this business,

Counting wars like that was your stupid idea. Claiming the Dems and Reps were equivalent warmongers, in the first place, was your silly posting. Listing (equivalently) the warmongering Presidents involved in creating the current mess and leaving out Reagan and Bush was you reposting the standard wingnut schtick - granted you threw in W, but just as another name rather than the major blunderer and biggest warmonger of the lot.

and conclude that there are no interesting differences in foreign policy between Reps and Dems.

And you end up posting same old, same old, US Republican media schticks, the same bs we are getting right now from the usual suspects in the US, as is your practice. And you are going to claim coincidence.
- - - -

This is completely neutral about domestic policy issues you name "rise of fascism" in the US and has nothing to do with a rise of fascism in Russia, which exists only in your fantasy.

Nonsense. It is directly about their ignorance of US politics, and their non-coincidental acceptance of Russian fascist governance. They, like you, speak as if what they can't or won't see will not hurt them - like a child covering their eyes.
- - - -

If somebody claims that, in the average, more A leads to more B, you like to use some very special subset of A which leads to less B and claim you have refuted something. But such special cases do not at all refute that there is a statistical connection.

That's not what I posted. What I posted is that your presumptions of average benefits from more water vapor are ignorant.

To repeat one specific item: It is not true, what you posted, that on average more vapor must lead to more clouds, which would lead to more rain, which would benefit agriculture. You lack information. And this is the third time around with that particular thread of bs, at least - slow learner?

The major complication there is in the vague term "more", which conceals the difference between intensity and frequency, but I read it as if you knew what you were saying and intended the strongest interpretation (that is, not even you would post that flood-intensity inundating rainstorms benefit agriculture on average, so I felt free to take "more" as meaning "more frequent" or "more of the right kind").

All of your climate change posting is identical to regurgitated bs from professional, hired gun, corporate paid, rightwing authoritarian think tank, Republican Party backing, media savvy AGW denialist sources. Same vocabulary, even (hysterics, alarmists, globalists, etc).

Meanwhile, this Republican rightwing corporate media bs about climate change, the stuff identical to your posting, deflects an otherwise obvious and central criticism of Trump's Republican administration: it is trashing the US government support for any scientific research that threatens capitalist corporate power and profit. Without the smokescreen of AGW denial, the damage done to scientific inquiry in that and related fields by Republican legislators and Republican executive administration would become almost impossible to keep hidden from the affected citizenry.

 

[iceaura]

In the list of things this President has said that cannot be securely classified as either honest opinions of his or deliberately goofy idiocies designed to troll the libs:

They say a wall is medieval, well so is a wheel. A wheel is older than a wall...
- - - -
The wheel is older than the wall, you know that? There are some things that work. You know what? A wheel works and a wall works. Nothing like a wall.

Of course walls were invented long before wheels - thousands of years before. But that isn't even the point, with this guy. He gets such facts wrong more often than he gets them right - this is not chance, working. This is tactics. The question is: whose?

 

[Write4U]

In a "country of laws" the President obeys the law, it is a Democracy
A country where the president makes the law is no longer a country of laws, it is a Dictatorship.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

In a "country of laws" the President obeys the law, it is a Democracy
A country where the president makes the law is no longer a country of laws, it is a Dictatorship.

that is why i detest the americanist fascist cultural language term "Law Maker"
because it asserts a fascist ideological doctrine to the position of authority & directly undermines democratic process.

it is as absurd as going-about calling people nazis and hitler because they wont do what you tell them to do.
it is an affront to democracy the likes of many seem morally to abide.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Can a US president be charged with treason?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics/nyt-russia-trump-investigation/index.html

 

[geordief]

The accusation only needs to be credible for support to haemorrhage,you would suppose.

At that stage formal charges or actions might be considered.

Venal stupidity looks most likely to me (treachery seems stupid per se,though)

The truth should set you free but this truth is a multi tangled monster .

 

[iceaura]

A blogger's overview of the recent "news":
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2019/1/12/4738/13344?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: boomantribune/Svpw (Booman Tribune)

The firing of Comey was interpreted as an effort to kill the Russia investigation for a simple reason. President Trump explained his decision in those terms. He did it in a memo he wrote that was spiked by his own White House counsel, Don McGahn. He did it in the Oval Office with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister. And he eventually did it on national television in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt. It wasn’t just an effort to obstruct an investigation of himself. It was an effort to prevent the FBI from investigating Russia.

It has been fairly easy for people to contemplate that Trump might be trying to cover his own tracks, but there has been a widespread mental block when it comes to envisioning the American president as working to cover Russia’s tracks. The FBI overcame that hurdle after the firing of Comey. Ever since, the investigation has operated on the assumption that Trump and Russia are coconspirators both before and after the fact.

The accusation only needs to be credible for support to haemorrhage,you would suppose.

The accusation has been credible since Trump announced his candidacy. Trump was elected President anyway, and has consolidated power since.

 

[geordief]

A blogger's overview of the recent "news":
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2019/1/12/4738/13344?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: boomantribune/Svpw (Booman Tribune)

The accusation has been credible since Trump announced his candidacy. Trump was elected President anyway, and has consolidated power since.

Both credible and incredible.A smoking gun would be nice but perhaps too much to hope for.

Amazing that anyone would have considered voting for such an obvious conman at the outset.

A (limited) lesson USA may eventually take to heart.

 

[iceaura]

A majority of Republican voters do not know that all their weather information comes from the same government agencies and scientists that document and warn of climate change. So this aspect of Republican governance - the crippling of government agencies by mismanagement and now shutdown - does not disturb them:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...orse-because-shutdown/?utm_term=.61e69312c9e1

Suru Saha, a union steward at the Environmental Modeling Center in College Park, Md., said the main impact has been on the National Weather Service’s new global forecast model, which was scheduled to go live in February but will surely be delayed because of the shutdown.

But in the meantime, the current Global Forecast System — or the GFS — the United States' premier weather model, is running poorly, and there’s no one on duty to fix it.

Trump=Republican. Republican=Trump

 

[iceaura]

Why I check in on the blogs: http://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/2019/01/hes-misbehavin.html

I'm in the White House
I'm all alone
my silent night house
just tweetin on my telephone
I'm misbehavin
ravin cause I miss you
- - -
-

 

[Write4U]

At what point are tax payers going to object to being extorted to pay taxes on pain of closing government services which are instituted and maintained by the people's taxes, thus taking your money for a service which is not the will of the people, but that of a single individual.

Is that not called "extortion", a federal felony offense?

 

[Schmelzer]

And they don't care how - the rise of fascism in the world's dominant military power bothers them not at all.

Why should leftist scaremongering bother them? Fascism is already there, in economy since the New Deal, in domestic policy at least since the Patriot Act, and in foreign policy this "new fascism" appears to be even more peaceful that what was before.

Claiming the Dems and Reps were equivalent warmongers, in the first place, was your silly posting.

I do not see any essential difference. I don't have to count wars for this. You claim differences, so you have to justify this, with some counting or with other means, your problem.

Listing (equivalently) the warmongering Presidents involved in creating the current mess and leaving out Reagan and Bush was you reposting the standard wingnut schtick - granted you threw in W, but just as another name rather than the major blunderer and biggest warmonger of the lot.

As explained, I care about the mess during the unipolar world order, not the one during the bipolar time. So, that posting was not at all about who is the greatest warmonger in US history (in this case I would think about Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt).

And you end up posting same old, same old, US Republican media schticks, the same bs we are getting right now from the usual suspects in the US, as is your practice.

as an answer to "there are no interesting differences in foreign policy between Reps and Dems", lol. Never seen a party which claims that there are no interesting differences between them and their opponents.

They, like you, speak as if what they can't or won't see will not hurt them - like a child covering their eyes.

The Russian commenters I value emphasize that the great crisis they expect to come will hurt the whole world. Of course, in different degree, and many of them see Russia as one of the states best prepared to that time (almost no debt, low dependence on imports and exports, thus, on what goes down during a worldwide crisis, good gold reserves), but they have no doubt that this crisis will hurt Russia too. About the political crisis to be expected they also see Russia quite safe - it has the greatest deterrence power against the US. Nonetheless, they are afraid of the US leadership going completely insane and starting a war against Russia. So, there is no base for a claim that they behave like a child covering eyes.

What I posted is that your presumptions of average benefits from more water vapor are ignorant.

As usual, a claim without further argumentation. Beyond the line of argumentation which I have criticized.

To repeat one specific item: It is not true, what you posted, that on average more vapor must lead to more clouds, which would lead to more rain, which would benefit agriculture. You lack information. And this is the third time around with that particular thread of bs, at least - slow learner?

There is no teacher, so, nobody I can learn from. A teacher would start to explain the real situation. That there are always particular special circumstances where the average expectation will be wrong is a triviality. If one of the correlations I expect would be really wrong, say, if more clouds lead in the average to less rain, you should say this and refer to some source where I could read more about this. Once you don't do such things, you make only empty claims, without any justification, and such claims, once implausible, a reasonable person will ignore instead of "learning" it.

The major complication there is in the vague term "more", which conceals the difference between intensity and frequency, but I read it as if you knew what you were saying and intended the strongest interpretation (that is, not even you would post that flood-intensity inundating rainstorms benefit agriculture on average, so I felt free to take "more" as meaning "more frequent" or "more of the right kind").

Once I do not specify the details (frequencies/intensity and so on), it is, of course, simply about averages.

Same vocabulary, even (hysterics, alarmists, globalists, etc).

The point being? I use the vocabulary which seems the most accurate, and, of course, have to care that it is also used or at least understood by the guys I'm talking with. "Globalists" seems quite accurate, given that it covers those who fight for a unipolar world. They are on both sides of the political spectrum (left and right, Reps and Dems), so using these other subdivisions would be about some very different groups. "Alarmists" also nicely fits, it distinguishes those who simply think that there is an anthropogenic warming, and those who present this as a horrible catastrophe. If your political opponents use a more adequate language, why should I bother?

And, again, as usual, not a single link to some "Republican rightwing corporate media bs" which is the same as something I have written. It would not really matter, of course, it would only mean that the sources you name bs are better than you claim, but it is typical for you - claims, claims, claims, no proofs.

Who's agriculture? Rainforests? Rice paddies?

I don't understand the point. For agriculture in the average. Of course, there are plants which do not need much water, and too much water will be even worse for them. But once the climate becomes more humid in the average one can replace them with others which need more water. And those which need less water can be used in other regions, where it is now too dry even for them.

 

[Write4U]

So, that posting was not at all about who is the greatest warmonger in US history (in this case I would think about Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt).

I am not sure these presidents deserve the label of "war monger"

war·mon·ger, noun
noun: war-monger

1. a person who encourages or advocates aggression towards other countries or groups.
   
   synonyms;
   militarist, hawk, jingoist, saber-rattler, aggressor, provoker, belligerenta trigger-happy warmonger"

1. 
   I doubt any of those took delight in ordering men and women into war

OTOH, Mr Trump seems to delight in make life extremely difficult for a great portion of tax paying public service employees. What would you call that?

Civil war mongering? All the synonyms apply!