Agrees!
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
- Status
Legal acts are not crimes, by definition.
It did, when you justified backing Trump on those grounds.
Whatever led you to post that wingnut bs about the Constitution and the New Deal, for starters. I don't read minds.
The Republican Party and its rightwing authoritarian support "started" it, and Obama (regardless of his intentions) had no way to "stop" it (you seem to have no idea what a US Congress or President does).
A Republican administration and Trump's Party and support wrote and passed the Patriot Act, and Trump has expanded its role and reach and severity of application. Exactly as predicted, by those informed about Trump and the Republican Party.
In hindsight, Trump's future faction and Party had already prepared it in anticipation of W's election - after 9/11 they had it ready for Congressional passage within a few weeks.
Yep. Reagan, actually. Clinton - rightwing authoritarian that he was - helped it along, W provided the major boost, Obama's intentions are impossible to figure - he faced a Republican Congress devoted to blocking anything he attempted. Trump, of course, continues on the Republican Party course - with your support.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Indeed, the state has the monopoly to do these things, so, if competitors do then, the state defines this to be a crime.
IOW, you don't know what's wrong, but it has to be wrong.
Really funny. Elections somehow matter, even if Obama cannot do anything that the deep state does not like.
The magical Republican Congress was the following: "In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress So, now you have a choice. Either you did not know this, in this case, it is you who knows nothing about the US and even some foreign enemies of the US know more. Or you did know this, in this case, you have yet another time caught cheating. If the Dems would have been against Patriot act, they could have prepared everything and stopped it immediately 2008. It would have been reasonable to do this immediately, given that this exceptional situation does not happen often and could get lost after two years, with everybody knowing about this possibility.
Such is life for propagandists like you. Whenever they start presenting facts, they get caught with lying.
So enough of the metaphorical nonsense.
Yep.
You have posted the silliest and crudest and most familiar US wingnut bs, in apparent sincerity. Maybe you were dropped on your head as a child, maybe you are too lazy or incompetent to acquire accurate information, maybe you are being paid to spread that crap all over the landscape, who knows. I can't read your mind.
Now you have the official Republican Party and Congress identified as "the deep State",
while the elected politicians who stymied Obama (and campaigned for votes on that basis) you present as examples that elections don't matter.
That kind of comedy from you is where people get the idea you don't know much of anything about US government, or history, or politics, or domestic society.
So?
1) That wasn't the Republican Congress. That was the Democratic Congress - a large fraction of whom were "Blue Dogs" opposed to Obama's agenda, holding significant committee power as well as often voting with the Republican Congress.
2) The Democratic Party did not have enough of a majority in the Senate to pass legislation against filibuster (the organized Republican opposition set records for filibuster): sixty votes were needed. The Dems plus the Independents had 60 votes for about a month and a half in the fall of 2009 - that's how key parts of Obamacare got through.
3) A lot was accomplished anyway, by that Congress - two years was not enough time to roll back everything, or even everything important, regardless of the situation. It was not enough time to repeal the Patriot Act, for example, even if Obama wanted to at the time, and even if that repeal could have got by the Blue Dogs and the Senate filibuster.
Oh please. Do you have to parade every single wingnut turdtake on this forum?
1) Many Dems were, some weren't - enough weren't to block any legislation, since the Republicans were organized as a bloc. The Patriot Act was controversial, and only the leftwing members of the Democratic Party were firmly opposed to the whole thing.
2) No, even if they wanted to they could not have "stopped it immediately" (whatever you mean by that silly language) in 2008. They didn't take office until 2009, and they had other stuff to do.
3) And if the Blue Dogs didn't want to, that is not Obama's doing, and not an invalidation of the agenda of the rest of the Democratic Party.
The Republicans voted as a bloc. The Democrats did not. They were not equivalent "sides" (they still aren't). Arguing as if they were is bullshitting.
You post such silly crap with such perfect confidence.
They had other priorities. There was a failing war, a hurricane, and the collapse of the entire national economy, if you recall.
Meanwhile: your attempts to cover your ass after supporting the President, Party, and authoritarian corporate capitalists who actually were and are responsible for the Patriot Act and its current expansion into authoritarian misgovernment are noted.
It's not covered, by the way. Trump is a Patriot Act President personified - same Party, same supporters, same authoritarian approach, same rhetoric and agenda - and you backed his candidacy.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Not at all. Let's see who supported the Patriot act according to you:
So, we have clarified that the Dems would have been able to remove the Patriot act if they would have been united, but there is enough support for this version of fascism in the Dem party too. Thus, for the really important thing elections don't matter. If one follows your wider definition of fascism, the US is essentially indistinguishable from a fascist state since the Patriot Act, and it is fascist with bipartisan support.
Sorry, recognizing Trump as less evil than Clinton means not even support for Trump - because Trump is evil too. Even less it means support for the Reps. And even less for the corporate capitalists.
Moreover, there would be no need to cover my ass, because from my position everything is fine. Trump harms the US empire in a way which is simply great. And now even the anti-Trumpers start to harm the US empire, once they think this somehow harms Trump. Ideal cooperation.
Then, I have always clarified that I do not care about your inner problems. Why should I care? The US supported fascists in Ukraine, Islamic terrorists in Syria and Libya, all this with the intention to destroy these states, and you want to blame me for supporting a quite legal party, once I think this weakens the US empire? Simply because this party is somehow fascist? I couldn't care less about your inner problems, blame the aggressive governments you have elected for creating such feelings outside the US.
That's possible (not likely, given the filibuster and the emergencies in progress at the time). It has been one of my objections to your continual "the Dems" bs.
"Thus"? That's stupid. Elections matter more, not less, when there are disagreements among elected officials about the really important things.
The Patriot Act was Republican legislation, and like the Iraq War would never have existed without an elected Republican administration and Congress.
It did mean exactly that. It's how you justified your support for Trump.
Nobody has claimed that the fascist takeover of the Republican Party was good for the US. Only that it would be bad for everyone else as well - something your blindness to fascism prevents you from recognizing. Your idea of "simply great" now includes expanded and intensified risk of nuclear war involving Russia and the US, for example. It includes setting up civil war in Venezuela, and expanding the drone wars in the Middle East.
You supported the Party and political faction most responsible for that bad stuff, the very worst of the bad guys who did those bad things.
Meanwhile: You seem to think that weakening the better aspects of the US will automatically weaken the worse - why, I don't know, but the major clue is your vulnerability to the crude wingnut propaganda that the Trump voters also suck up.
Yep.
I do. You don't, is the odd thing. You blame the same targets the crudest and silliest US corporate capitalist propaganda operations blame.
Meanwhile Trump, latest President in the decades long rise of fascism in the US, is not an "inner problem" only.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/0...onal-women-in-courage-award-state-department/
This is current US foreign policy.
The Art of Reneging On Deals.
In public. For trivial and what used to be called "unAmerican" reasons.
This is current US foreign policy.
The Art of Reneging On Deals.
In public. For trivial and what used to be called "unAmerican" reasons.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Wrong. The PATRIOT Act would have passed with 2/3 majority in the House and almost complete support in the Senate even if only the Dems would have voted.
The place where the risk of confrontation with Russia was the greatest - Syria - Trump's policy was much more reasonable than what was promised by Hillary. Some more billions of taxpayers money spend for corruption of the military-industrial complex is not a seriously increased risk. Instead, it is a window of time - it means, the US will now spend a lot of years developing new weapons (in reality distributing the money among the good friends in the military-industrial complex). And only if the result would be a really impressive success (and there is no need for presenting it this way for the guys who get the money, given that they want more of them in future too) this would increase the danger of war.
If the situation in Venezuela does not escalate - and it looks like there is not that much reason to expect further escalation - then it did the same thing as the many other attempts made by Trump:
1.) They failed.
2.) Those who have been harmed most by the failure are the globalists. Namely, first of all, the Venezuelan US puppets who are now openly discredited as US puppets. And the Western "democracies" which openly supported the US action against any international law, in particular, GB with openly robbing the gold reserves of Venezuela, which in this way destroys its reputation as a place where one can leave some money at a bank without fear that it will be robbed. Of course, the US reputation in this question was damaged too (if there was yet something to be damaged).
3.) The open declarations by the hawks of the return to Monroe doctrine seriously harmed the US soft power even among the right-wing Latinos - they hate the gringos too.
No, I think a strong inner conflict weakens, first of all, the US as a whole (which is positive for the world). The best way to weaken the US as a whole would be to support the weaker faction. This is classical Divide et Impera, widely used by the US foreign policy too, so you should know this. Once what matters is the deep state split, and there the Trump side is quite obviously a minority, supporting Trump would be the right decision according to this strategy. Fortunately, it is also the more moral one, given that nationalism is less dangerous than globalism.
The problem for the rest of the world is the US itself, as a whole, independent of the party which rules it actually.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
"Virtually everything failed lawyer Michael Cohen said in his sworn testimony last week is totally contradicted in his just released manuscript for a book about me. It's a total new love letter to 'Trump'..."
-- Trump
-- Trump
It was Republican legislation, and would not have existed if only the Dems had existed in Congress, or if a Dem had taken the White House.
Elections matter. In US elections you support the bad guys who do the bad things you claim to deplore.
Trump is increasing the risk of nuclear confrontation everywhere, including in the Mideast with Russia.
Exactly as I pointed out. You think a diplomatically weaker US with a more heavily armed military and a fascist government is a positive development for the world.
Living and learning about fascism.
Living and learning about fascism.
Also - now - China, and Russia, and India, and Pakistan, and so forth. If oppressive government and nuclear war are - as you claimed - your concerns.
recognizing trump as less evil than clinton makes you a goddamn moron. clinton would have been a standard third way democrat. not bad not great but middling. trump a damn dumpster fire.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Which follows from which evidence? They have proposed it? Ok, one of them had to propose it. Without the Reps, the Dems would have proposed it, once they liked it that much.
In those elections, I supported the guy who had proposed the most reasonable (the only reasonable) foreign policy program. And, given that election programs are usually lies, so that the expectations have been low anyway, the results after two years are surprisingly good.
Today, soft power is more important than military hardware, at least as long as the military hardware does not give the US a first strike possibility, real or imagined.
Given the actual situation, the central part of the US military power - the aircraft carriers - became sitting ducks for the Russian hypersound rockets, and for the nuclear power itself, Russia has the technically superior versions. So, even complete idiots will understand that there is no US first strike ability. This is what matters at the military front.
The soft power of the US was, instead, very strong and only mildly weakened during Obama time. Actually, it is deteriorating with a quite large speed. Which is very good. The US soft power is what gives the US a lot of additional income. Most importantly to print dollars and other countries taking them as if they were worth something. And the strong power over many Western politicians gives also a lot, in particular via buying heavily overpriced US weapons for their military, but also by giving US firms large advantages on their markets.
Weakening this soft power is much more important now, once it creates income to the US, and this income is used to increase the military power. Moreover, it creates additional income to the rest of the world, because the US typically uses its soft power to sabotage cooperation between many other players.
Actually, Trump overplays the sanctions as a method to disrupt such cooperation, threatening even allies with sanctions if they do not participate in sanctioning their initial target, like Iran, NK, or Venezuela. This has already forced the Europeans as well as India into a conflict. And once such powerful players learn that it is possible to resist, and develop the means to resist (like financial infrastructure which cannot be disrupted or even controlled by the US), this not only improves the relations between those countries which decide to resist but also secures them against future US attacks if the globalists come back in power.
As usual, you completely fail to present my concerns correctly.
What US propaganda, as well as you, name "oppressive government" is completely irrelevant for me. It is about democracy (which I do not value at all), "free press" which is more about the right of the US to buy the whole press and to control it, freedom of demonstrations which allows a US-paid mob to overthrow a government, and in general simply about the ability of the US to organize a regime change in a quite cheap way, simply by a press campaign against the actual rulers. Why should I care about this at all? What matters for me are the personal freedoms of the people in the country, the freedom to do what they like to do. Here, a good indicator of freedom is the incarceration rate. Which gives a quite different picture of oppression than Western propaganda as well as your list:
As you can see, India and Pakistan are completely out of being "oppressive", China is quite moderate, Russia is, indeed, sufficiently oppressive - and as I have explained already many times, I will not live in Russia, despite close cultural bounds, and this is an important contribution to this decision. (I recognize very well that the incarceration rate is not the whole picture of the state repression of personal freedom, there are other important contributions, like anarchistic ignorance of state-prescribed laws (very strong in Russia, but in the US probably too), the relation of the society (or the relevant part of the society, say, the black community for black people) to former imprisonment, corruption (the possibility to buy your freedom for a bribe if necessary) and others. But it is a good first approximation - last but not least, the rate of psychopaths which end necessarily in prison is probably nation-independent, and essentially nobody likes to end in prison.)
Then, I did not claim that nuclear war is my concern. My concern is a nuclear war which endangers the survival of mankind. This would be only a nuclear war between two of the three greatest nuclear powers, the US, Russia, and China, with the greatest danger being a nuclear war between Russia and the US.
No, it's not. You sucker for rightwing US propaganda on that topic - your entire view of US history and government and civil society is based on it.
The realm of comedy.
All nuclear wars endanger human civilization - all your friends, all your freedoms.
And Trump has made all nuclear war - including with China, Russia, and the US - more likely.
The last genuine US nuclear first strike capability was around 1955. That has not changed. That's not what the problem has ever been.
The most severely oppressive regime on the planet, at the moment, is probably the Chinese governance of the Uighurs. Pakistan is severely oppressive of women, India's caste system is still in force, etc. You can't see this for yourself?
- - - -
The historical record of what happened. All the evidence there is.
Your uninformed imagination is hallucinating.
No, "they" would not have. No Dems had anything like that written, it wasn't in their Party agenda, and "they" didn't like it that much. The Patriot Act was Republican legislation, from the Republican Party. Had the Republican Party not won the elections it won in 2000, there would have been no invasion of Iraq and no Patriot Act as we know it.
Elections matter.
No, you didn't. You supported Donald Trump, who was and is a fascist demagogue with exactly the foreign policy you claimed to oppose - the Republican foreign policy that launched the Iraq War.
Living and learning about fascism.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Even if it would be more than your propaganda fantasy - US history and government is as relevant for me than that of Papua New Guinea. All what bothers me is that dangerous aggressive state the US is today.
No. A war between India and Pakistan would be horrible for those living there, but mankind would survive this.
Here I disagree. There is a quite small time window when nuclear war is really a danger - the time of transition from the unipolar to the multipolar world. It started in 2015 seriously, with the regime change in the Ukraine and Crimea going to Russia as a consequence. How long it takes, is not clear, but every year of peace counts as an important step. Once the transition is over, and even the globalists in the US accept this, the danger of nuclear war decreases again, and essentially. It is the transition which is the most dangerous time.
As explained, the two years of Trump without a major war starting is already very good news, two more years where a nuclear war neither with Russia nor with China is expected is another good news. The speedup of the deterioration of the US soft power also shortens the length of this dangerous transition period.
It has been the reason for the USSR to react symmetrically and to spend a lot of money into the nuclear arms race. This was, together with the economic failure of the communist system, one reason for the collapse of the Soviet empire. And there was a second attempt of the US to reach first strike capability. Namely, starting with their decision to build a defense system against the ICBM. Without Russia coming back and developing its own nuclear power, this could have led to a first strike capability.
I see a lot of oppression in the world, different countries oppress different groups, comparing this is even more meaningless than counting wars. And I see a lot of propaganda about the enemy state horribly suppressing good minorities. The Uighurs have had, BTW, a quite serious contingent of fighters for the IS, so, a quite serious anti-terrorist fight is simply a necessity for the Chinese powers.
What I have proposed as a criterion is a quite neutral one, the incarceration rate. That's a neutral starting point. Then, everybody can start to care about details, namely about the freedoms which are important for himself. Once I'm male and look for a place where it is nice to live for me, why should I care much about women's rights? I'm not obliged to care about equal rights - I make a choice to emigrate based on my own interests.
The evidence you have presented yet is quite weak. Not more than that the Reps have introduced it.
Who has written all this is unknown, what is known is only that it was far too much text to be written after 9/11, thus, it was written and waiting for a nice crisis to be used for this. This is what one expects from the deep state interested in such legislation.
I compared the proposals about Syria and Russia, which seemed to be the most serious issues for me, and have made the most peaceful choice among the candidates. I cared about the candidates, not the Party behind them.
Meanwhile, in the annals of Trump, some context for Robert Kraft's support and personal connections: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26768158/tokyo-day-spa-li-yang-donald-trump/
So if you want to know who got to watch the Super Bowl with the President of the United States, here are some selfies:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article227186429.html
So if you want to know who got to watch the Super Bowl with the President of the United States, here are some selfies:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article227186429.html
She has pictures. Lots of pictures:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
"Fat Jerry Nadler is doing me a favor. He's too stupid to realize it. He's making me a lot of money."
-- Trump on Rep. Jerry Nadler in 1995, during conflict over public funding for a Trump project
"I [called him 'fat'] for a reason. I really feel that whatever can inspire him to go out and lose that tremendous amount of weight should be done. To be honest with you, he's a walking time bomb and if I can convince him to put himself, not in great, but in reasonable shape, I'm doing great service to him and his family."
-- Trump, defending his comment
-- Trump on Rep. Jerry Nadler in 1995, during conflict over public funding for a Trump project
"I [called him 'fat'] for a reason. I really feel that whatever can inspire him to go out and lose that tremendous amount of weight should be done. To be honest with you, he's a walking time bomb and if I can convince him to put himself, not in great, but in reasonable shape, I'm doing great service to him and his family."
-- Trump, defending his comment
You swallowed Republican propaganda, and failed to recognize the nature of the candidate you supported.
You post about US history and government. You lack information. Like this:
And developed it over the years, as part of the Republican agenda. And written it. And organized the media campaign. And pushed it through Congress. And nominated the President and Vice President who most strongly favored and promoted it.
The Reps were the sole source of the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War. That's just a fact. You supported the more authoritarian and oppressive candidate and Party, the ones whose foreign policy you claimed to oppose.
The entire oppressed province of the Uighurs is an incarceration site - the incarceration rate is 100%.
The incarceration rate of women in Saudi Arabia is likewise - by the measure of "can you leave" - 100%.
Nuclear war will be an increasing danger as long as nuclear weapons increasingly proliferate. It will be even more of a danger as more violent and less competent authorities get control of the weapons and policies involved.
Living and learning about fascism.
More silly opinions without information. Ignorance is bliss.
Human civilization might not survive a full scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan even if it all went exactly as planned, and did not spread.
And the cat emerges, bag forgotten.
Meaningless. W didn't "start" even the Iraq War until spring of 2003.
Trump is bad news - for you as well.
The verbosity in this thread is giving me eye strain.
In reference to passing the Patriot Act based on the actions after Pearl Harbor the democrats would have done much the same as the republicans.
As to the dangers of a nuclear confrontation direct you attention to India and Pakistan.
DJT may still think he is in the casino business. With a $3 contribution you get a chance for dinner with him.
In reference to passing the Patriot Act based on the actions after Pearl Harbor the democrats would have done much the same as the republicans.
As to the dangers of a nuclear confrontation direct you attention to India and Pakistan.
DJT may still think he is in the casino business. With a $3 contribution you get a chance for dinner with him.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Iceaura continues to present US history in such a way as if everything bad is done by the Reps, and the Dems unable to do anything which is seriously bad. I find https://www.zerohedge.com/contribut...itten-many-many-years-911-and-attacks-simply- much more plausible - it does not even mention Rep or Dem.
The question if a nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be a danger for the survival of humanity as a whole is, of course, an interesting one. If it would be, it would follow that humanity has to chance to survive anyway, and all we can hope for would be to survive a few years more. There is no serious chance to stop proliferation, given that US regime change will probably remain a danger for a long time to everybody, and nuclear weapons a way to deter it which was not available to Ghadafi, Hussein, and Assad but to Kim. So, a prerequisite for even hope for a successful stop of proliferation would be a return of the US to serious isolationism. To hope for this is, actually, a completely naive delusion. So, expect further proliferation. Bad luck for humanity. Say thank you, in particular, to Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton.
The question if a nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be a danger for the survival of humanity as a whole is, of course, an interesting one. If it would be, it would follow that humanity has to chance to survive anyway, and all we can hope for would be to survive a few years more. There is no serious chance to stop proliferation, given that US regime change will probably remain a danger for a long time to everybody, and nuclear weapons a way to deter it which was not available to Ghadafi, Hussein, and Assad but to Kim. So, a prerequisite for even hope for a successful stop of proliferation would be a return of the US to serious isolationism. To hope for this is, actually, a completely naive delusion. So, expect further proliferation. Bad luck for humanity. Say thank you, in particular, to Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton.
- Status