The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

I don't want to go to US, so I don't care about the walls around the US

And you don't care about war - even nuclear - unless it involves attacking Russia. And you don't care about climate change policy in the US, because it doesn't affect Russia as far as you know. And so forth.
Your world revolves around Russia, and still you can't see its governance.
Which is why you can't see Trump for what he is, or the Russian influence in various countries for what it is, or Putin for what he is.

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.

It was what closed the window. Being ignored by the Russians you know means nothing - had they paid better attention, they may have been able to keep the window open (and eventually avoided Putin). By Clinton, it was too late.

poor Clinton

Clinton marked a major advance in the partial co-option of the Democratic Party by the authoritarian corporate right. He was not good. But he was a minor figure in the bad stuff you deplore - he continued, more moderately and with less outright evil, the bad stuff Reagan and Bush set in motion. And even that he did largely under Republican coercion.
- - - -

I do not confuse them, I name corporatism the economic system of fascism

That's a mistake, and it confuses you.
"Private capitalistic industrial corporatism", at least - for minimal accuracy.
But that still would not fix your central confusion, your basic error of logic, which is to invert the implication and assert the converse: that if it is such an economic system, then it is fascist. That is simply ignorance and poor reasoning - fascism's economic system is not unique to fascism. Lots of quite different governing systems can incorporate private capitalist corporate economic organization.
Fascism (like piracy, mob, crime in general) is parasitic - none of its features are unique, or products of its own insight and ideology.

The New Deal was not fascist. And nobody thinks it was fascist except those fooled by US Republican rightwing authoritarian media feeds, the stuff put out by paid rightwing corporate authoritarian shills (such as Jonah Goldberg). So you have displayed the source of your posting and thinking about US politics - the media wing of American fascism, as it has taken over the Republican Party. You are posting as a tool of American fascism.

How are Trump's policies related to what is libertarian?

To what you call "libertarian": Through your forecast of benefits from his shutdown, explicitly described by you as a "libertarian" viewpoint. You were not joking, on purpose anyway.
- - - -

I have checked.

You have not. You post in ignorance of even the basics, and that is not possible for one who has checked.

It does. This is what dams do.

The Aswan Dam does not handle the predicted effects of AGW on rainfall patterns in the world's agricultural regions.

Very volatile inflows from upstream can be transformed into a constant flow downstream.

Why are you changing the subject? Rainfall effects (volatility, distribution, etc) as predicted by AGW, not "inflows from upstream".
The predicted likely AGW effects on rainfall in agricultural regions worldwide cannot be handled by dams. That is something you can check.

A few, like no rain at all, cannot be handled. But they are quite improbable, local exceptions.

The predicted effects of AGW are not predicted to be improbable local exceptions. You can check that, also.

You could even check out the basic engineering and economic feasibility of building lots more dams all over the world, ignoring the fact that they don't address the AGW effects. You could, say, try to find lots of places where there could be a use for a dam but there isn't one. You could check the cost and timelines involved, especially in keeping up with AGW as it continues to alter the climate and move things around - any new equilibrium being currently hundreds of years away and receding.

And then - on this thread - you could back up, and consider the effects of the continuing Republican governance of the US on the agricultural productivity of the US during climate change - no small factor, in the "average" agricultural productivity of the planet. That again is something you could check.

You could start with the US government's backing of scientific research and development, as seen in Trump's budgets - he advocates expanding the military, including large budget increases for new first strike nuclear weapons and new defenses against retaliation; adding to his already significant expansion of drone warfare; cutting back on climate change research and adaptations to AGW, including agricultural. Does that suggest anything to you, about how the US under Republican governance is setting up to deal with the effects of AGW?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg

How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas

you believe what the guy says ?

given the dubious source, was simply motivated by the context of the discussion (existential internal threat). Sort of "even if the source is dubious, there exists claims that there really may be existential threats actually in the US".

like institutionalized racism in the usa sparking race wars ?

9/11 usa military coup attempt ?

Barack Obama being a Muslim spy who is going to invade the usa ?

sensible sane logical stuff like that ...

existential
/ˌɛɡzɪˈstɛnʃ(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: existential

1. relating to existence.
   • Philosophy
     concerned with existentialism.
   • Logic
     (of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.

Origin

An event that could cause human extinction or permanently and drastically curtail humanity's potential is known as an existential risk. Potential global catastrophic risks include anthropogenic risks, caused by humans (technology, governance, climate change), and natural or external risks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk#Moral_importance_of_existential_risk

Extraterrestrial invasion
Main article: Alien invasion

Intelligent extraterrestrial life, if existent, could invade Earth[113] either to exterminate and supplant human life, enslave it under a colonial system, steal the planet's resources, or destroy the planet altogether.

Although evidence of alien life has never been documented, scientists such as Carl Sagan have postulated that the existence of extraterrestrial life is very likely. In 1969, the "Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law" was added to the United States Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14, Section 1211) in response to the possibility of biological contamination resulting from the U.S. Apollo Space Program. It was removed in 1991.[114] Scientists consider such a scenario technically possible, but unlikely.[115]

An article in The New York Times discussed the possible threats for humanity of intentionally sending messages aimed at extraterrestrial life into the cosmos in the context of the SETI efforts. Several renowned public figures such as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have argued against sending such messages on the grounds that extraterrestrial civilizations with technology are probably far more advanced than humanity and could pose an existential threat to humanity.[116]

has anyone started asking if Americans fear an extraterrestrial invasion ? if so is it many talking about it ?
should we be using faux peeVee language ?

 

[Schmelzer]

And you don't care about war - even nuclear - unless it involves attacking Russia.

Distortion of my position. First, I care about wars, even more, nuclear wars. Only in comparison with a nuclear war between the US and Russia such wars would be irrelevant because such a war could lead (nuclear winter) to the end of mankind. That Russia is involved does not matter, a nuclear war with China could be equally fatal.

And you don't care about climate change policy in the US, because it doesn't affect Russia as far as you know. And so forth.

Another distortion. I don't care about climate change policy because I think the horror scenarios are a political hysteria so that climate change is not a serious danger at all. For the whole world.

Russia plays a role here for other reasons: It is the main enemy of the US, together with China, thus, a target of lies by your media. And, different from China, I can read Russian sources. My world revolves around different places, I have been the last time in Russia 2008, the last time in China this year.

It was what closed the window. Being ignored by the Russians you know means nothing - had they paid better attention, they may have been able to keep the window open (and eventually avoided Putin). By Clinton, it was too late.

This makes no sense. If the window was already closed by Bush, paying attention by the Russians would have changed nothing. Once the window was closed, Putin as a ruler made sense. When he started, it was expected that Russia disappears as a state in near future, with a lot of civil war on the whole territory. Today Russia is a state in a quite satisfactory condition, and the Russian people are much more rich and live in peace, which is what matters for them.

That's a mistake, and it confuses you.
"Private capitalistic industrial corporatism", at least - for minimal accuracy.
But that still would not fix your central confusion, your basic error of logic, which is to invert the implication and assert the converse: that if it is such an economic system, then it is fascist. That is simply ignorance and poor reasoning - fascism's economic system is not unique to fascism.

Facepalm. Learn to read. Such a "refutation" in the answer of a post where I wrote "I name corporatism the economic system of fascism. It may be, of course, also the economic system of other things, like democracy or so."

The New Deal was not fascist.

The point being? It was corporatist.

The Aswan Dam does not handle the predicted effects of AGW on rainfall patterns in the world's agricultural regions.

Of course, it can handle at most the problems of Egypt, and not the world's agriculture. Whatever, feel free to give evidence that it is unable to handle them.

Why are you changing the subject? Rainfall effects (volatility, distribution, etc) as predicted by AGW, not "inflows from upstream"

It is the only thing which matters in Egypt. Because there is essentially no rainfall in Egypt.

The predicted likely AGW effects on rainfall in agricultural regions worldwide cannot be handled by dams. That is something you can check.
The predicted effects of AGW are not predicted to be improbable local exceptions. You can check that, also.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm sure now that you don't have any evidence for this.

You could even check out the basic engineering and economic feasibility of building lots more dams all over the world, ignoring the fact that they don't address the AGW effects.

They are supposed to address only a single AGW effect, namely the volatility of the rainfalls. And they are known to be quite successful for this purpose. "Dams" includes, of course, not only such big dams like Assuan. Small dams are also useful for this purpose.

BTW, you are not in a position of a teacher to give me homework. To are only an anonymous guy with not much credibility given that you restrict yourself mainly to ad hominem and simple personal attacks instead of giving evidence for your fantasies.

Does that suggest anything to you, about how the US under Republican governance plans to handle the effects of AGW?

And, moreover, your homework shows only your incompetence even as a teacher, because is not even necessary to do it to answer this question. Why should Republicans who think AGW is fake news even plan to handle the effects of that fake?

you believe what the guy says ?

There is no need for this. He uses argumentation. As well, he uses quotes and references to support his claims. This particular book I have not read yet. But thanks for the recommendation, I will read it.

Just to clarify about my use of "existential risk": A civil war in the US will kill a lot of people, thus, is also an existential risk for them. But, of course, only for them, not for mankind. The point of the other text was beyond my understanding.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is no such lack. If iceaura thinks there is one, he is played by the Western propaganda, like you.

can you provide any .ru links that are highly critical of Russian governance?
I could provide you with literally hundreds of western links hat are highly critical of Western governance. ( too many to list).

How many can you provide that are based in Russia that are highly critical of Russian Governance especially Putin?

 

[iceaura]

This makes no sense. If the window was already closed by Bush, paying attention by the Russians would have changed nothing.

It didn't change the window.

Why should Republicans who think AGW is fake news even plan to handle the effects of that fake?

Doesn't matter. You can see how they are setting up to handle trouble, trouble of any kind. Nukes and drones get major funding, other stuff not so much.
(And you are not giving the planners credit: not all Republicans are ignorant of AGW. The people paying for the accusations of "fake news" often know better, themselves. We know for a fact that Exxon commissioned internal AGW research decades ago, for example - and we know what they found. Likewise the Pentagon. The corporate interests that are funding climate change denial often have a much better idea of what's coming than "fake news").

They are supposed to address only a single AGW effect, namely the volatility of the rainfalls.

They cannot address the changes in the volatility of rainfall predicted as most likely from AGW. You don't know what those predictions are, is your handicap. (You don't know anything about building dams, either, but that's subsidiary).
- - - -

The point being? It was corporatist.

It was not fascist. You said it was fascist. You said Roosevelt introduced the economic system of fascism to America in his New Deal. You were wrong about that, and all your Russian buddies are also wrong about that, and the US propaganda operation you got that stupid idea from is familiar to Americans who pay attention to such things.

BTW, you are not in a position of a teacher to give me homework

You are very ignorant, you refuse information offered by others, and I am willing to spot - repeatedly, over and over and over - the areas where you need information.
You don't have to bother, of course - but maybe you don't really want to spend your time here reposting crude idiocies from the silliest and worst of the American wingnut manipulations. It's possible that presenting yourself as the intellectual equivalent of this guy [ https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/26479-get-a-brain-morans ] is not something you want to do.

Meanwhile, my own motive has nothing to do with you - it's to counter unopposed repetition of American fascist propaganda, in the small corner of the media world where I can. Simply to post opposition to it, so it isn't the entire field of view.

 

[Quantum Quack]

One already lives since 1990 https://echo.msk.ru/about/history/misc.html another one since 1989

would you care to point out an article for me to translate please...most of what I have translated have not offered any criticism at all...

At the moment it is conservatively estimated that up to 200 persons are being held as political prisoners in Russia.

 

[Schmelzer]

I could provide you with literally hundreds of western links hat are highly critical of Western governance. ( too many to list).
How many can you provide that are based in Russia that are highly critical of Russian Governance especially Putin?

It depends how long it is worth for me to find exact links of all those sources. Once you have not given a single one, and I have already given two, why should I try even more?
BTW, you can easily find media links critical of the particular guys which actually rule, in particular against Trump, but essentially no mainstream media critical of the whole system itself. Such information you can find in blogs, that's all.

would you care to point out an article for me to translate please...most of what I have translated have not offered any criticism at all...
At the moment it is conservatively estimated that up to 200 persons are being held as political prisoners in Russia.

Let's see https://echo.msk.ru/blog/eshenepozner/2353709-echo/
18:30 is it important for Putin to identify the purchaser of the murder of Nemzow/Politkovskaja? (Answer is not).
20:25 about some list of planned murders of various prominent people from the opposition (inclusive this guy itself)
23:55 Some horrible for Russia things made by Kadyrow: Islamization of Chechnya, persecution of sexual minorities, killing of Chechen opposition in other contries.
and so on. This is a criticism of the type of Clinton's body count.

They cannot address the changes in the volatility of rainfall predicted as most likely from AGW.

Feel free to present evidence.

You said it was fascist.

Find the quote, find the word "economic" there and correct your claim appropriately.

You said Roosevelt introduced the economic system of fascism to America in his New Deal.

Oh, you remember this. Fine. So why you lie about "fascist" without this? After we have already clarified that I and you think that the economic system of fascism can be used also in other societies, we both know that there is a difference. So, an intentional lie.

If the claim itself is correct or not remains unclear, once you have not given any argument or evidence that it is wrong.

but maybe you don't really want to spend your time here reposting crude idiocies from the silliest and worst of the American wingnut manipulations.

Given that no counterarguments are presented, it follows that these are not idiocies. That you name them idiocies without providing any evidence only shows that you have none. And that means the claim itself is fine.

Meanwhile, my own motive has nothing to do with you - it's to counter unopposed repetition of American fascist propaganda, in the small corner of the media world where I can. Simply to post opposition to it, so it isn't the entire field of view.

Given that you do not provide any counterarguments (simple name-calling is none, and ad hominem that it comes from the bad guys is none too) the "American fascist propaganda" or what you name so remains unopposed here. Or, more accurate, opposed only by name-calling, without arguments, which is even worse. Because it creates the impression that there are no counterarguments.

 

[Write4U]

?????????????????????

You didn't realize that, did you?

 

[Write4U]

This is a criticism of the type of Clinton's body count.

I'm done with you....bahh........click!

 

[Write4U]

If Trump wants his wall so badly why doesn't he sell Trump towers and pay for it himself like a good patriot.

It's so easy to ask other people to pay for your pet projects on threat of losing their government job.
Just as easy as not paying the laborers who built your properties.

Well Mr.Trump, this time, put your own money where your mouth is. Else, perhaps you should lose your government JOB in service of the Nation and it's people.

 

[iceaura]

BTW, you can easily find media links critical of the particular guys which actually rule, in particular against Trump, but essentially no mainstream media critical of the whole system itself.

Not in particular against Trump.
And of course the failure to criticize the Republican Party as a whole, or even recognize in passing its systemic fascism, is a striking example of the US corporate news media's helplessness in the face of such media operations. This goes back to Reagan - one of the interesting historical items that have come up in the wake of the Republican shutdown is the fact that Jimmy Carter was subjected to three or four Republican shutdowns and threats, and was blamed for their effects. That's partly how Reagan got elected.

Given that you do not provide any counterarguments (simple name-calling is none, and ad hominem that it comes from the bad guys is none too) the "American fascist propaganda" or what you name so remains unopposed here. Or, more accurate, opposed only by name-calling, without arguments, which is even worse.

You assume arguments are important, when dealing with American fascist propaganda feeds and the gullible spreaders of them. They are not.

For examples of why they are almost irrelevant, look at your responses to my links and arguments of the past,

or one of my current and unanswered arguments for you: that since you are ignorant about a couple of scientific matters (such as climate change) your assertions regarding them are very unlikely to be accurate, and your vulnerability to professional media manipulation regarding is very great. You have no base in reality for self defense.

It's a good argument - you know yourself how ignorant you are, you have explicitly acknowledged it (in the process of claiming it makes no significant difference, which is comical), and clearly in matters such as climate change or Trump's Republican governance knowledge is critical. But having a good argument makes no difference to the purveyors of American fascist media feeds - they, and you have become one of them, simply dismiss it. Blow it off. Misrepresent it as "namecalling".

And that way of handling arguments and information - blow it off, bothsides it, drown it in repetition of bs - is how Republican media operations have been working in the US. It's how fascist propaganda works in general. It's standard. Say something false - the bigger and more blatantly stupid the better - and simply repeat it at high volume. It becomes legitimate opinion simply by taking up the view, framing the entire public arena of discussion. It also establishes the frame of power - that the fascists doing the repeating are in charge, and their critics are outside and weak.

Examples: Roosevelt's New Deal introduced the economic system of fascism to America. Trump is a businessman and isolationist with new policies the military/industrial "establishment" or "mainstream" opposes, and so not likely to monger war. The scientists researching climate change are politically influenced "alarmists" who have been bribed or coerced into advocating horror fantasies by "mainstream fads" and threats to their funding. Sound familiar?

In response to such flagrant bs, arguments and evidence haven't mattered and will not matter. Such things are for people willing to consider them, not the amplifiers and repeaters of American fascist propaganda feeds.

And that is the central issue of the current Republican Presidency, imho. They aren't trying to win an argument. They are trying to take power.

 

[iceaura]

Shorter:

Feel free to present evidence.

Waste of time before. You are the one reposting silly wingnut media feeds from a position of ignorance. Do your own homework.

Given that no counterarguments are presented, it follows that these are not idiocies.

Now that's funny, right there.
And it's typical of the Republican voter in the US. It's the central issue of Republican governance in America, imho. They aren't arguing - they are grabbing power.

That you name them idiocies without providing any evidence only shows that you have none. And that means the claim itself is fine.

Which not only illustrates the uselessness of presenting you with actual argument now, but shows how much the arguments and evidence of the past made a difference. Zero. You are still just repeating the same idiocies from the same sources.

And so is the rest of the Republican media operation, including Trump himself. It's a strategy, and it's a familiar one - it's how fascism wins.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It depends how long it is worth for me to find exact links of all those sources. Once you have not given a single one, and I have already given two, why should I try even more?
BTW, you can easily find media links critical of the particular guys which actually rule, in particular against Trump, but essentially no mainstream media critical of the whole system itself. Such information you can find in blogs, that's all.

Let's see https://echo.msk.ru/blog/eshenepozner/2353709-echo/
18:30 is it important for Putin to identify the purchaser of the murder of Nemzow/Politkovskaja? (Answer is not).
20:25 about some list of planned murders of various prominent people from the opposition (inclusive this guy itself)
23:55 Some horrible for Russia things made by Kadyrow: Islamization of Chechnya, persecution of sexual minorities, killing of Chechen opposition in other contries.
and so on. This is a criticism of the type of Clinton's body count.

Perhaps you could do some deep research into the Roskomnadzor?

 

[Write4U]

And so is the rest of the Republican media operation, including Trump himself. It's a strategy, and it's a familiar one - it's how fascism wins.

A little example

Russia approves draft agreement between the governments of Russia and Egypt on setting up the Russian Industrial Zone in the Suez Canal Economic Zone and providing for its operation

A strategic site, affording control over a primary world economic center. Way to go Trump......

 

[Write4U]

I have an idea. Why don't we give Trump our daughters, he's taking everything else. He receives a house to live in, food to eat, protection for his entire family, including military transportation for his wife. But in return he takes government military protection away from an heir to the presidency. He demands tax money for his wall, but takes away the income for hundreds of thousands of government employees, he disparages our government judicial system, while he flaunts the law. He is taking it all until there is nothing left to take.
He has done this all his life.

He gets his way on everything because he threatens harm (perhaps short of assassination) to whoever opposes him.

This is the definition of tyranny. Trump has been revealed as a tyrant.

ty·rant, noun

1. 1. a cruel and oppressive ruler.
   "the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations"
   synonyms:dictator, despot, autocrat, absolute ruler, authoritarian, oppressor
   "an evil tyrant who has imprisoned all who oppose his regime"

You'll have to file your taxes with money if you owe, but you will not get a refund if you have overpaid.
Obey me or I'll make you work without pay altogether, like a chain gang.(as he has already done)
Or I'll take your job away from you (as he has already done with several excellent people).

When will this stop?

 

[Schmelzer]

You didn't realize that, did you?

With such a sequence of question marks I indicate that I was unable to interpret what was written in any meaningful way. So, no, I did not realize anything reading this post, but was unable to make sense of what was written.

Not in particular against Trump.
And of course the failure to criticize the Republican Party as a whole, or even recognize in passing its systemic fascism, is a striking example of the US corporate news media's helplessness in the face of such media operations.

I did not claim such a failure, just to clarify. To have two big parties, with a bipartisan agreement about all the really important things and allowed criticism between them about everything else is the established strategy to create the impression of free speech.

You assume arguments are important, when dealing with American fascist propaganda feeds and the gullible spreaders of them. They are not.

Arguments are always important. When dealing with propaganda feeds they are especially important.

or one of my current and unanswered arguments for you: that since you are ignorant about a couple of scientific matters (such as climate change) your assertions regarding them are very unlikely to be accurate, and your vulnerability to professional media manipulation regarding is very great. You have no base in reality for self defense. It's a good argument - you know yourself how ignorant you are, you have explicitly acknowledged it (in the process of claiming it makes no significant difference, which is comical), and clearly in matters such as climate change or Trump's Republican governance knowledge is critical.

This is not an argument but simply smear. And even if I would be ignorant about important things, your "very unlikely" does not give much, and completely misses the methods I use. These are, btw, standard scientific methods, scientists are used to working in circumstances where they don't know very much and to extract, nonetheless, information. One straightforward method is to use simplified models. They can be easily handled, to do this one does not yet need information about details of the differences between the simple model and reality. It gives some approximation of averages. In a second step, one can think about the size of the differences.

In the case of climate science, the very rough estimates are already sufficient to see that we are yet below the optimum temperature, and a global cooling would be much more harmful. It is also sufficient to see that more H2O in the air will give in the average more rain, which, together with more CO2, leads to more plant growth. It is also easy to see that volatility of rains caused by higher temperature and more rain is negative but not deadly. given that there is a lot of plant growth as well as agriculture in regions where it is hot and where is a lot of rain already today. Thinking oneself is the main weapon against propaganda, and I know enough to use it.

And that way of handling arguments and information - blow it off, bothsides it, drown it in repetition of bs - is how Republican media operations have been working in the US. It's how fascist propaganda works in general. It's standard. Say something false - the bigger and more blatantly stupid the better - and simply repeat it at high volume.

It is standard and well-known to me. And I see these methods applied in your postings too. That's easy. Look at the high volume of repetitions of defamations against me.

Examples: Roosevelt's New Deal introduced the economic system of fascism to America. Trump is a businessman and isolationist with new policies the military/industrial "establishment" or "mainstream" opposes, and so not likely to monger war. The scientists researching climate change are politically influenced "alarmists" who have been bribed or coerced into advocating horror fantasies by "mainstream fads" and threats to their funding. Sound familiar?

Familiar but irrelevant. The problem is that from repeating something all the time it does not yet follow that it is a propaganda lie. It may be a propaganda lie, it may be not. This is what you would have to decide yourself, at least if the claim is sufficiently important to you to invest time in researching it. I agree with some of the claims, but I disagree with most of them. They obviously remember your usual distortions about what I think but are very different from what I really think, even if you have tried to use words I also use.

Perhaps you could do some deep research into the Roskomnadzor?

What would be the point of it? That there is such an instance, and that there is a list of blocked sites? I know this. Such things work in the West too. Say, against Holocaust deniers or illegal porn The IS also does not have free speech in the US, not?

 

[Schmelzer]

BTW, it appears that the 13 evil Russian bots which have turned the election in favor of Trump have not even targeted the swing states with their evil ads and posted a lot of them even after the elections. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ian-voter-targeting-effort-doesnt-seem-exist/ Those who believed that nonsense about the Russian influence have been played. As was clear from the start.

 

[iceaura]

Arguments are always important. When dealing with propaganda feeds they are especially important.

They are irrelevant when dealing with the fascist media tactics at issue, as seen in your reposting here. Arguments require a base in reality, and the goal of fascist media feed is to destroy all base in reality.
You repost crass idiocies and flagrant bs from a position of ignorance, it gets labeled. Done.

BTW, it appears that the 13 evil Russian bots which have turned the election in favor of Trump have not even targeted the swing states with their evil ads and posted a lot of them even after the elections.

So?

Those who believed that nonsense about the Russian influence have been played.

You are making no sense. How does the existence of a dozen or more crude, typically unsophisticated Russian bots imply a lack of Russian influence?

Meanwhile, why do you misrepresent the doings of those bots as "ads"? That kind of deceptive vocabulary characterizes the American corporate media feeds as well as the Russian influence, of course, but you often brag about not being taken in by such operations.

The problem is that from repeating something all the time it does not yet follow that it is a propaganda lie.

It doesn't "follow", it characterizes.

I did not claim such a failure, just to clarify.

You buried it in both sider bs. I clarified it for you.

To have two big parties, with a bipartisan agreement about all the really important things and allowed criticism between them about everything else is the established strategy to create the impression of free speech.

And the wingnut bingo card hits another number.
To repost the bothsides bs, the current Republican Party line, as if it were your own thinking, is typical of your posting here.
- - - -

 

[iceaura]

It is also sufficient to see that more H2O in the air will give in the average more rain, which, together with more CO2, leads to more plant growth.

You are once again trying to hide the fact that you are trying to bullshit about agriculture, not "plants".
Meanwhile, as noted before: it is simply not true that "more" rain and "more" CO2 necessarily leads to more "plant growth" - on average or any other way. It depends on where and when and how the rain falls, and what the circumstances are surrounding the CO2 utilization.
That is even more critical - it is central - to the effects on agriculture.

In the case of climate science, the very rough estimates are already sufficient to see that we are yet below the optimum temperature, and a global cooling would be much more harmful.

Wingnut bingo card hits another number. Literally everything you post, about AGW - every single thing.

This is not an argument but simply smear.

It's an argument. And you have stipulated to the premises yourself, explicitly, right here.
1)You are ignorant. You agreed.
2) Others are better informed. You agreed.
3) In complex scientific matters, claims made by the ignorant are unlikely to be as accurate as claims made by the better informed. You have not yet explicitly agreed.
4) Therefore, your assertions are unlikely to be as accurate as those of the climate researchers you contradict. You need information, before you can accurately assign labels such as "alarmist", or make claims about AGW and its effects.

And even if I would be ignorant about important things, your "very unlikely" does not give much, and completely misses the methods I use. These are, btw, standard scientific methods, scientists are used to working in circumstances where they don't know very much and to extract, nonetheless, information

You are not using any "standard scientific" methods. And not only is that obvious in your posting, but you have described your methods, remember? You said you were handling research reports as if they were politically biased - individually and collectively - according to your preconceived political situation. That's what you said you were doing, and that's what you visibly do.
That's not how scientists evaluate research. That is how propagandists push their agenda.

The fact that you are rather comically wrong about the political situation (your assumption of the direction of political and economic pressure has it inverted, completely backwards, in the US) just made your postings more flagrantly silly. The more significant, central, error is your failure to evaluate the research from a base of physical reality. And labeling it "error" is granting the benefit of a diminishing doubt.

Relevance to Trump? The same pattern: no base in reality for the evaluations. Trump is presumed to be an enemy of the "deep State", presumed to have a consistent ideology and personal interest in governance, presumed to be a legitimate businessman, presumed to be opposed to warmongering and military violence, presumed to be isolationist, presumed to be opposed to political influence on scientific research, presumed to be opposed to "globalism", etc etc etc - none of this from any base of knowledge about Trump or his rise to power. The attacks on him are presumed to be illegitimate and baseless slanders originating among his globalist opponents and others in the "deep State" - again, without reference to physical reality.

The destruction of all base in physical reality for political discourse and conflict is a primary goal of fascist propaganda. That attempted and partially successful destruction, by the media wing of the Republican Party, is a primary identifying characteristic of that Party as fascist.

 

[Schmelzer]

They are irrelevant

And this is the central difference between us. I think arguments matter, you think they are irrelevant.

How does the existence of a dozen or more crude, typically unsophisticated Russian bots imply a lack of Russian influence?

Non-existence can in principle never be proven. So, what implies a lack of Russian influence is the absence of evidence that they have.

Meanwhile, why do you misrepresent the doings of those bots as "ads"? That kind of deceptive vocabulary characterizes the American corporate media feeds as well as ...

I use the language used by WP. I do not participate in PC campaigns to correct the vocabulary.

It doesn't "follow", it characterizes.

You think so? But then it also characterizes simple truths. They also tend to be repeated quite often. Can something characterize A but also characterize not A? I thought if something characterizes A, observing this something would have to be an indication that A is correct. This certainly does not hold in this case.

The usual repetitions of bs disposed of.

You are once again trying to hide the fact that you are trying to bullshit about agriculture, not "plants".

I once again miss the evidence for that there is some bullshit. Then, if I write "plants" I mean "plants". I think that what is good for plants is, in the average, also good for agriculture. But I also know that these are different things, and know that you like to misuse minor differences for bullshitting. So, if "plants" is more accurate that "agriculture" I use "plants".

Meanwhile, as noted before: it is simply not true that "more" rain and "more" CO2 necessarily leads to more "plant growth" - on average or any other way.

So what, I have never made such claims. Not with "necessarily". I'm talking about averages, and do not claim necessities. Of course, I know that more rain caused by temperatures around 90 degrees of Celsius would be harmful to plant growth, even in the average.

It's an argument. And you have stipulated to the premises yourself, explicitly, right here.
1)You are ignorant. You agreed.
2) Others are better informed. You agreed.
3) In complex scientific matters, claims made by the ignorant are unlikely to be as accurate as claims made by the better informed. You have not yet explicitly agreed.

No. I have agreed that I'm ignorant about a lot of irrelevant questions. Questions which are irrelevant for the particular question discussed. I'm not ignorant about the relevant things. Similar for (2). Similar for (3). I disagree that, say, one who is ignorant about theology is unlikely to be as accurate as a specialist in theology in a scientific discussion.

4) Therefore, your assertions are unlikely to be as accurate as those of the climate researchers you contradict.

I have not contradicted any climate researchers yet. At least you are not known as a climate researcher (and if you would be one, this would seriously decrease the reputation of climate science in general). And your claims, as far as I have rejected them, have not been supported by any links to research from climate researchers. If you disagree, link your post where you have done this.

You said you were handling research reports as if they were politically biased - individually and collectively - according to your preconceived political situation. That's what you said you were doing, and that's what you visibly do. That's not how scientists evaluate research.

If there is a reason to suspect a political bias, such a bias of researchers is something which every serious evaluation of that scientific research has to take into account too.

More bs without any evidence to support it disposed of.