Confusing corporatist economic order with fascism, and then thinking the New Deal introduced corporatist economic order to America, is your idiocy, not mine.
I do not confuse them, I name corporatism the economic system of fascism. It may be, of course, also the economic system of other things, like democracy or so. There were, of course, a lot of corporatist elements in the US already before the New Deal, but the New Deal was certainly a heavy boost.
Actually, it's probably not yours.
I do not claim priority, so what? Goldberg is certainly a much better source than you, given that he supports his claims with a lot of quotes and references. So, what he claims is something worth to think about, different from your claims.
Nonsense. It was exactly the stuff you declare to be bad, including the rejection of sound policy toward post-collapse Russia along with regime change and warmongering as US foreign policy.
Of course, it was and is bad, but it was not what closed the "window of opportunity" of good relations with Russia. During that time it was mostly ignored by Russians. They even liked the US at that time.
... such as the Kosovo War - which Clinton got dragged into, btw, while being impeached by the Republican Congress.
poor Clinton
There isn't much fascist stupidity that Russia is avoiding - possibly the whackjob strongman shouting long speeches. Russia is pretty much fascist, on the standard cards - government by organized crime.
You know nothing about Russia - you are played by the anti-Russian Western propaganda. (Let's see what I can learn from you
)
That's not libertarian. A libertarian values and maximizes personal liberty. Minimum government does not maximize personal liberty. For example, 2/3 of the citizens of the US have less liberty - in the form of Constitutional limits on law enforcement, freedom from authoritarian coercion - than they did before Trump and than they did before the shutdown.
How are Trump's policies related to what is libertarian? Trump is certainly not a libertarian, thus, his behavior and its consequences are irrelevant for this. I know some left-libertarians like a lot of government and high taxes to distribute the money to everybody. But I do not name such guys libertarian.
You just did. I quoted you. And you have before - it's what you do instead of acquiring information about climate change.
I have checked. The result is that what I have named "horror fantasies" was a quote from you, and not some quote from some "calm, conservative, research and analysis backed predictions of the best informed people on the planet". You may, of course, think about yourself in such terms, but you have to live with the fact that I don't think you can be characterized in this way.
The Aswan Dam does not handle volatility of rainfall either.
It does. This is what dams do. Very volatile inflows from upstream can be transformed into a constant flow downstream.
The predicted likely AGW effects on rainfall in agricultural regions worldwide cannot be handled by dams.
Some of them can. Some of them can be handled by other measures, like switching to other crops. It depends on the particular effects in the particular regions. A few, like no rain at all, cannot be handled. But they are quite improbable, local exceptions.
Yes. I side with Russia only because the multipolar world is much less evil than the unipolar world. A unique world government would be the greatest horror scenario for me. A multipolar world gives me already much more freedom of choice between the territories controlled by different criminal gangs. I can find one which is the least evil one, given my personal interests (even if it is, for other people, very evil).
Anarchism is a
political philosophy[1][2] that advocates ... the rejection of
hierarchies those societies view as unjust.
Does not really make sense. And anarchism does not reject hierarchies based on voluntary acceptance of the leaders. It objects against hierarchies enforced by military power.
Things were bad before. Why not make them worse. Makes no difference, no?
Maybe things will get better. How's that for logic?
In this form, there would be no logic. But it has not much to do with my position.
For what matters for me, there is no evidence for Trump being in any sense worse than Clinton. I have always said that I prefer Trump only as less evil than Clinton.
If Trump is in some domestic policy questions worse than Clinton or not is nothing I care about. That is your problem, not my problem. That Trump, doing foreign policy in stupid ways, weakens the US influence and soft power in the world is something you will possibly not like, but I like it. This is because I think the US influence around the world creates much more harm than good.
