The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

This source claims 29:21 among the Dems.

That's the Senate Dem vote on the war powers act, not support for the war.

At the time, many Congressional Dems explicitly based their vote on W's public promise not to launch war unless forced - since such forcing by Iraq was nearly impossible, they were able to claim that they were not supporting war but rather empowering the negotiations that would prevent war. That enabled them to justify the politically safer vote (the Republican propaganda campaign for war was heavy and jingoistic and could be focused on the voting base of Dems who didn't give the Republican administration the cover it wanted. It took courage to vote against W's war powers - several Dems lost elections because of their refusal even to grant W the War Powers he wanted, let alone support launching an invasion of Iraq)

Why should I guess if those wars were started by Obama or the deep state?

Or W, or Cheney, or Chevron, or BP, or some other force entirely.
You shouldn't. Yet you insist on doing so.

You think I have to copypaste from the book?

If that's the only way to get your posts to match your claims, you should either do that or quit making the claims .

The key remains: If Dems are presidents, wars are started as usual. Electing a Dem as a president does not prevent wars.

It prevents the extra number, larger scale, greater corruption, worse management, and worse consequences, of a Republican president's greater tendency to launch wars and lesser ability to fight them competently.
The Iraq War alone is bigger and worse than the sum of every Dem president's military ventures since Vietnam.

If Trump starts a war with Iran, China, or North Korea, it may be worse yet. If he confines his military violence to Mexico, Venezuela, one of the smaller African hot spots with resources, continuing to ramp up an existing Middle East conflict, or some other SA or CA country, his contribution to US violence will remain smaller than W's. That would be good, and lucky, for the US. The odds of remaining that lucky will improve if we can get the Republicans out of the Executive branch.

 

[Vociferous]

No. It is usually passed on partially.

And the business just eats the remaining loss in profit? Fat chance.
What's more likely is that any remaining loss is covered by cutting hours or number of jobs, which hurts the very people a minimum wage purports to help.

But many more would get pay hikes if the minimum wage were increased.

Evidence? So businesses that pay better than minimum wage would raise wages, even though their costs are rising too? Not likely.

Wage increases used to be routine, in the US, and the Federal minimum wage used to be much higher than it is now - runaway inflation did not happen. Prices were lower, for many things.

And those increases were relatively small and far apart. Prices were always lower in the past. That's how inflation works.

More error. Since higher wage earners save more and spend less of their income, there would be if anything a net gain in purchasing power. If remuneration to top executives and shareholders is reduced to balance the books, the net increase in purchasing power could be quite large.

Minimum wage earner spend what they earn, even after a increase, due to poor money management and rising prices.

In the research done by the pros, low wages often reduce productivity - some of the mechanisms:
they induce longer hours; they induce multiple job holdings; they abet inadequate investment in machinery and lower investment in workplace organization and communications; they increase absenteeism, turnover rates, and training costs; they abet poor health in multiple ways, from nutrition and sleep and medical care deficiencies to increased spread of communicable diseases at work; they reduce motivation for creativity and cooperation with management goals.
That list is partial.
And so forth.

Meaningless appeal to uncited authority.
Higher minimum wages cause:
- cut hours
- cut positions
- lower rates of skill acquisition
All of which harm a person's future earnings potential.

 

[iceaura]

Meaningless appeal to uncited authority.
Higher minimum wages cause:
- cut hours
- cut positions
- lower rates of skill acquisition

A period of fulltime low wage work correlates with reduced earnings for life, on average.

Meaningless appeal to uncited authority.

Meaningful post of known facts you requested, no authority necessary. Do I need to use smaller words for you?

Evidence? So businesses that pay better than minimum wage would raise wages, even though their costs are rising too?

Yep. Many have to (the new minimum wage is higher than they pay), and many choose or are forced into maintaining a pay differential to avoid loss of skilled employees into lower pressure jobs and attract new hires for more difficult or more onerous jobs than the minimum wage ones.

And the business just eats the remaining loss in profit? Fat chance

Commonly observed and theoretically coerced response. See your Econ 101 textbook, or your history book. Normally the business then finds ways to improve productivity or quality, to restore earnings and profits.

And those increases were relatively small and far apart

They were far more frequent and much larger than the more recent increases.

Minimum wage earner spend what they earn, even after a increase, due to poor money management and rising prices.

Almost all low paid workers spend what they earn, to meet their cost of living. That's where the net increase in purchasing power comes from. In the US they are often forced into debt - spending more than they earn.
The prices rise much more slowly than the low end wages if the market is competitive, because the wages are only a percentage of the prices (often a small percentage, in minimum wage jobs). Again, see your Econ 101 textbook.

Prices were always lower in the past. That's how inflation works.

Prices were lower after correction for inflation. Low end wages, especially the minimum wages, were higher after correction for inflation. Simultaneously. That's partly because executive remuneration and return to capital were much lower, and taxation was sliding scale - "progressive".

Higher minimum wages cause:
- cut hours
- cut positions
- lower rates of skill acquisition

Higher minimum wages cause higher rates of skill acquisition - including more and better ojt, more access to more sophisticated machinery, and so forth. The cut hours help increase productivity. The cut positions are only of jobs that cannot pay the necessary wages for maintaining decent human life - good riddance.

All of which harm a person's future earnings potential.

Poor health (especially dental) from abusive hours, lack of leisure time, bad diet, and stress, harm a person far more than hours shortened to a standard 8 and 40 (which help, not harm). Badly paid jobs harm a person's future earnings potential, by reducing their opportunities to pick up skills and experience with better machinery and working conditions among other factors.
Leisure time aids a person's future earnings potential - by improving their appearance and social skills, among other benefits.

And the children of the badly paid also suffer these harms, in their case for entire lifespans - bad health, bad teeth, blighted opportunities to pick up skills social and mechanical, stress and bad living conditions, damaged marriage potential, etc. If the minimum wage remains low for a long time, an entire class of generations of people harmed by these side effects will come to exist - that damages the entire economy and society for generations.

Reaganomics, the Supply Side idiocy brought into US economic governance by the Republican Party in service to their corporate support, has done severe damage to the US society, culture, and economic prospects. The huge surplus built up in US society prior to the Republican rise of 1980 has now been largely spent down - the debt piled up in deferred maintenance and neglected schoolchildren and tolerated medical disorders and ruined ecosystems and abetted capital flight now sits on the economy like a toad. Trump plans to add to it, significantly.

 

[Seattle]

It's true that the Iraq war would not have been started had there been a Democratic president. That's not to say that Democrats have never started wars but they are much less likely to start questionable conflicts.

Talking about "corporate capitalists" is redundant and misleading. There are no corporations (other than the state) in other forms of organization. Corporations are capitalistic structures. That's where most of our jobs come from. Capitalism and corporations aren't inherently bad things.

This idea of "balancing" the cost of increased wages by lowering shareholder return is nonsense as well. It's all interactive. Much like placing a dam on a river is not a free lunch in environmental terms, neither is raising wages (not due to productivity) just by fiat going to result in a free lunch.

Globalism is a thing. Not a bad thing. It's just a fact. The world is interconnected. Nationalism is generally a bad thing.

Concern for workers is not a bad thing but trying to mandate wages rather than tying them to increased productivity is something that is not sustainable.

It is the case that capitalism works best with honest regulation/laws/infrastructure. That doesn't mean that all regulation is good or that more is always better. You can't regulate something that you don't actually have control over. Market forces ultimately prevail in most scenarios and regulators have to keep that in mind along with the unintended consequences.

 

[iceaura]

There are no corporations (other than the state) in other forms of organization

Other than states and governments is a very large exception - another major category of economic organization. The corporate authoritarian left should not be forgotten - it still runs a fair share of the world's economies.

This idea of "balancing" the cost of increased wages by lowering shareholder return is nonsense as well.

And executive remuneration. It's common.

Concern for workers is not a bad thing but trying to mandate wages rather than tying them to increased productivity is something that is not sustainable.

Nobody is mandating wages. The minimum wage just puts a floor under the natural capitalist tendency to drive low end wages to bare subsistence levels (as has been happening in the US, slowly but surely, since around 1982). Beyond that, the corporation does the mandating.

Meanwhile, if the Federal minimum wage had been tied to productivity from the outset it would be more than double what it is.

You can't regulate something that you don't actually have control over.

You can't have control over something you don't regulate.

Market forces ultimately prevail in most scenarios and regulators have to keep that in mind along with the unintended consequences.

Market forces that do great harm and ruin societies cannot be allowed to prevail. Market forces that one pretends exist where there is no competitive and free market foster delusions that can wreck nations.

 

[Seattle]

Other than states and governments is a very large exception - another major category of economic organization. The corporate authoritarian left should not be forgotten - it still runs a fair share of the world's economies.

The authoritarian left still runs a fair share of the world's economies. "Corporate" doesn't really belong in this sentence.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's the Senate Dem vote on the war powers act, not support for the war.

Which was what counts. And if the Dems are ready to vote for a war they don't support, simply because of some risk to lose the next elections, they deserve to lose all elections.

At the time, many Congressional Dems explicitly based their vote on W's public promise not to launch war unless forced

ROTFL Dem politicians are really that stupid to believe such a claim from W????????????? Or they simply lie about this? Both alternatives don't speak in favor of such politicians.

Or W, or Cheney, or Chevron, or BP, or some other force entirely.
You shouldn't. Yet you insist on doing so.

You insist, by seeing all the time differences between Reps and Dems where I see the same results - criminal wars all over the world. If I see no differences, I usually refer to the deep state, as a sort of an all-inclusive term, covering the politicians, the top bureaucrats, the Big firms, the military-industrial complex as well as the various intelligence services, and acknowledging that I do not have to means to identify the particular force behind this.

It prevents the extra number, larger scale, greater corruption, worse management, and worse consequences, of a Republican president's greater tendency to launch wars and lesser ability to fight them competently.

In other words, Dems murder a little bit less, but do this more professional.

About the competence, I'm not sure. As in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, the military has done its job in a quite short time. What has failed was the fighting against the counter-insurgency after the clear military defeat of the other side. But in both cases, Obama has failed the continuation of that fight too. On the other hand, Libya is a similarly clear failure, except if one counts the complete destruction of a country and leaving it to terrorists as a success. Similarly in Syria, where the Russians have stopped this "success".

The aim behind the Ukrainian operation - to throw the Russian navy out of Crimea - has not been reached too, but failed completely. The Ukrainian economy is deteriorating because of the consequences of the civil war the US insisted on starting. The civil war they have simply lost. The support of the Ukrainian Nazis starts to backfire in Europe. At least in Poland those Ukrainians working there already recommend not to use the Ukrainian language at all, but to switch to the Russian language. Yes, in Poland, a country with very strong anti-Russian traditions and an actually anti-Russian government, it is much safer for your face to talk in the Russian language than in the Ukrainian one.

 

[Quantum Quack]

 

[iceaura]

In other words, Dems murder a little bit less, but do this more professional.

A lot less, and much more professionally. Likewise with the corruption, domestic militarization and police state tendencies, and handling of refugees.

What has failed was the fighting against the counter-insurgency after the clear military defeat of the other side.

That was the part managed by the Republicans - the large majority of the Iraq War.
It is the worst disaster the US has suffered since WWII, and the greatest evil done - beating several other Republican evils and disasters.

But in both cases, Obama has failed the continuation of that fight too.

Obama had limited control, and the Democratic Party almost none - most of the continuation was Republican setup.

If I see no differences, I usually refer to the deep state, as a sort of an all-inclusive term,

There is no reason for you to post at all when you have no information.

the deep state, as a sort of an all-inclusive term, covering the politicians, the top bureaucrats, the Big firms, the military-industrial complex as well as the various intelligence services, and acknowledging that I do not have to means to identify the particular force behind this.

Your deep state now includes politicians and temporary political appointees to top jobs at publicly visible agencies?
You invoke the ever-changing and never identified US deep state out of ignorance, to cover the many mistakes your ignorance of US politics and history and economics makes inevitable.

You insist, by seeing all the time differences between Reps and Dems where I see the same results

You needn't keep reminding us of your ignorance and inability to see things - we know.

The aim behind the Ukrainian operation - to throw the Russian navy out of Crimea - has not been reached too, but failed completely. The Ukrainian economy is deteriorating because of the consequences of the civil war the US insisted on starting. The civil war they have simply lost.

The US is not very good at fighting wars - never has been. That speaks well of my country, I think. But we need to learn to do without them. Having a cowardly and corrupt President who can be easily bribed or blackmailed by enemies to betray allies and pull out of wars in progress is not a reliable prophylactic measure. Installing a fascist administration was a long step in the wrong direction entirely. And destroying the better options of diplomacy and trade and so forth does not make war less likely.

Meanwhile, the civil war in Ukraine certainly featured a lot of Russian soldiers. No doubt this reflected the benevolence and idealism Russia is famous for. Do you have any idea when Russia will restore its war booty, the soldier-occupied Crimean territory, to Ukraine - now that the US President has been cowed by a couple of phone calls from the backwater autocrat currently bombing the Kurdish women and children he thinks live too close to Turkey.

 

[Schmelzer]

Obama had limited control, and the Democratic Party almost none - most of the continuation was Republican setup.

Poor Obama.

Your deep state now includes politicians and temporary political appointees to top jobs at publicly visible agencies?

These were always included. What makes them part of the deep state is that it remains unclear what is their real power. In a normal state this would be prescribed by the constitution, in the deep state the division of real power is different.

You invoke the ever-changing and never identified US deep state out of ignorance, to cover the many mistakes your ignorance of US politics and history and economics makes inevitable.

I do not have to cover anything, given that I have never made claims that I know much about US internal policies.

The US is not very good at fighting wars - never has been. That speaks well of my country, I think.

No. What speaks for or against a country is if it starts wars without justification, not if it is good or bad fighting them. The US is well positioned so that it has no enemies nearby, so it could have lived without starting a single war much more than 100 years.

Having a cowardly and corrupt President who can be easily bribed or blackmailed by enemies to betray allies and pull out of wars in progress is not a reliable prophylactic measure.

To pull out of unjust wars is always good. If this can be done in the US only by bribed or blackmailed presidents, thank God to have such a president.

Meanwhile, the civil war in Ukraine certainly featured a lot of Russian soldiers. No doubt this reflected the benevolence and idealism Russia is famous for. Do you have any idea when Russia will restore its war booty, the soldier-occupied Crimean territory, to Ukraine - now that the US President has been cowed by a couple of phone calls from the backwater autocrat currently bombing the Kurdish women and children he thinks live too close to Turkey.

There is no soldier-occupied Crimea, there is a Crimea with a population happy to be back in Russia. Ukrainian occupation will never come back.

 

[Seattle]

That was the part managed by the Republicans - the large majority of the Iraq War.
It is the worst disaster the US has suffered since WWII, and the greatest evil done - beating several other Republican evils and disasters.

Vietnam?

 

[iceaura]

To pull out of unjust wars is always good.

Depends on the situation. To abandon the innocent to slaughter and oppression at the hands of bad people is often a bad idea - no matter how you came to be responsible for their safety.

If this can be done in the US only by bribed or blackmailed presidents, thank God to have such a president.

It can also be done by decent Presidents, such as Obama, and overwhelmed Presidents, such as Reagan.
Just vs unjust doesn't help much in evaluating wars. Most are both.
Almost any war of anyone with Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Israel would be more or less "just", for example - likewise almost any war of Iran or Mexico with anyone, or any revolutionary war of women vs their governments in the Middle East. But that would not justify them.

These were always included. What makes them part of the deep state is that it remains unclear what is their real power

It does not - at least, no more than any random stranger's power. Do you also assign deep state status to every limo driver in Washington DC? You don't know what their real power is, after all.

There is no soldier-occupied Crimea, there is a Crimea with a population happy to be back in Russia.

Not only soldiers, but naval ships, military planes, various military infrastructure, spies and informants, etc. Russia's occupation force never went home.

Are you familiar with standard Elf and Vampire legends? One of the common characteristics of evils is that they can't invade your home unless you invite them in. Like all folktales, these are teaching stories in part - one learns as a child how to manage evil in one's life. Rule 1 is: don't invite it in. It won't leave on its own.

No. What speaks for or against a country is if it starts wars without justification, not if it is good or bad fighting them.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[iceaura]

Vietnam?

Iraq is worse.

 

[Seattle]

Iraq is worse.

Not in terms of lives lost. In terms of stupidity maybe but it's a close call even then.

 

[Tiassa]

​

There is a part of me that shrugs and notes some manner approaching sensibility finally arising, but it is also easy enough to wonder what took so long. As thresholds go, history will wonder what people knew compared to the catalyst of their departures.

Mr. Bolton got into a sharp exchange on July 10 with Gordon D. Sondland, the Trump donor turned ambassador to the European Union, who was working with Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, to press Ukraine to investigate Democrats, according to testimony provided to the investigators.

Mr. Bolton instructed Fiona Hill, the senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs, to notify the chief lawyer for the National Security Council that Mr. Giuliani was working with Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, on a rogue operation with legal implications, Ms. Hill told the investigators, according to two people familiar with her closed-door testimony.

"I am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up," Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to the testimony.

(Baker and Fandos↱)​

Still, there should not be a movie version. It should be a multiseason anime, and I can't begin to describe the production committee. There would be some justice if Netflix overspent to shore up exclusivity, only to wreck the show for two seasons and then cancel it.

Update (21.30): Nicholas Fandos↱, via Twitter, only minutes ago:

On the "drug deal" quote: 1 person in the room during Hill’s testimony initially said Bolton mentioned Rudy, but 2 others now say Hill said he actually cited Sondland: “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland & Mulvaney are cooking up"​

____________________

Notes:

Baker, Peter and Nicholas Fandos. "Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani 'a Hand Grenade'". The New York Times. 14 October 2019. NYTimes.com. 14 October 2019. https://nyti.ms/35Bx6xl

 

[Schmelzer]

Depends on the situation. To abandon the innocent to slaughter and oppression at the hands of bad people is often a bad idea - no matter how you came to be responsible for their safety.

Usually a nice justification to continue such wars forever, because some such "innocents" will be always easily found by propagandists, and the other side are anyway always "bad people". In this particular case, the US could have prevented this action of Turkey in a very simple way - really withdrawing when Trump has announced it the first time. Unfortunately for the Kurds, the deep state has prevented this.

It can also be done by decent Presidents, such as Obama,...

Except that Obama only reduced them, instead of completely withdrawing, and decently started to occupy other countries

Just vs unjust doesn't help much in evaluating wars. Most are both.

No. At least for the US wars, it is clear that they are wars of aggression. Nobody has attacked the US. The exceptions are rare (say, the first Iraq war, where Iraq was indeed the aggressor.

Almost any war of anyone with Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Israel would be more or less "just", for example - likewise almost any war of Iran or Mexico with anyone, or any revolutionary war of women vs their governments in the Middle East. But that would not justify them.

Unable to follow your criteria of justice.

It does not - at least, no more than any random stranger's power. Do you also assign deep state status to every limo driver in Washington DC? You don't know what their real power is, after all.

Nonsense. I'm sufficiently sure they have no power. From those which I count as parts of the deep state I know they have some power. The details are unknown, because these details are intentionally hidden (they are not those following from the constitution, therefore it makes sense to hide them) so that theories about the real power distribution are by necessity conspiracy theories. These are essentially trivialities. Any real power distribution in conflict with the constitutional one will be hidden because of this conflict, thus, it is a sort of conspiracy against the constitutional order. So any theory about it, except the trivial one that everything follows the prescriptions of the constitution, is a conspiracy theory. Not that I would be afraid of being name-called a proponent of conspiracy theories, but in this particular case, I have not that much interest.

One of the common characteristics of evils is that they can't invade your home unless you invite them in. Like all folktales, these are teaching stories in part - one learns as a child how to manage evil in one's life. Rule 1 is: don't invite it in. It won't leave on its own.

This was the lesson the Russians have learned in the 90s. The Ukrainians have not learned it up to now.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Anyone who wants to assist Syria in protecting the Kurds is good with me, whether it is Russia, China, or Napoleon Bonaparte. I hope they all do great, we are 7,000 miles away!"
-- Trump

 

[Baldeee]

Still, there should not be a movie version. It should be a multiseason anime, and I can't begin to describe the production committee. There would be some justice if Netflix overspent to shore up exclusivity, only to wreck the show for two seasons and then cancel it.

I like your thinking!
I am working my way through the entire 7 seasons of “The West Wing” (some of the best television ever to grace our screens, as far as I’m concerned) and I can’t help thinking that there is a darkly satirical version waiting to happen based on your current administration’s antics.
With Alec Baldwin as the President, perhaps?
We’ve done something along those lines in the UK called “The Thick Of It” (well worth watching), which is somewhat of a satire sledgehammer, but a more nuanced approach that invoked nostalgia of the West Wing would be great.

 

[Schmelzer]

"Anyone who wants to assist Syria in protecting the Kurds is good with me, whether it is Russia, China, or Napoleon Bonaparte. I hope they all do great, we are 7,000 miles away!"
-- Trump

The "Napoleon Bonaparte" is especially nice, it clearly refers to Macron, and many people like to joke about him being a wannabe-Napoleon.

 

[Tiassa]

So, CNN analyst and Obama-Biden hand Sam Vinograd↱ reminds:

Am I correct that the lawyer that Bolton told Hill to notify is the same lawyer that directed NSC staff to inappropriately stash call readouts on a codeword server?​

And the answer, of course, is yes.

John A. Eisenberg also facilitated the infamous 2017 midnight run by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA22) to the White House in order to share Congressional information with President Trump instead of Committee fellows.

On the conspiracist tip, Wayne Dupree↱ offered himself a pat on the back, today: "We told you a couple weeks back, [John Bolton] was the leaker and traitor...Turns out, we were right." This becomes even more fascinating a possiblity we try to figure out what happened next, after Fiona Hill reported up the ladder. Per Baker and Fandos↱:

Mr. Eisenberg told Ms. Hill he would report it up his chain of command, which would typically mean Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel. It was uncertain what he did at that point. But when the C.I.A. whistle-blower later filed his complaint, the agency's chief lawyer called Mr. Eisenberg at the White House. After several discussions over the following week, they decided the accusations had a reasonable basis.​

While Eisenberg seems to have made it his habit to look somewhat nefarious when he turns up in the Trump narrative, how farfetched is it, really, that failure to act immediately could push Bolton—who might be a career warmonger, but is still a career hand—to help trigger the CIA complaint, i.e., the "point-man", as Dupree accused, on the Ukraine whistleblowing?

To some degree, it's simply the idea that John Bolton really might turn out to finally have woken up to being the adult in the room. As thresholds go, history will wonder. Still, though, people like Eisenberg, whose name just keeps turning up at strange intersections of necessity and wrongness, eventually do stand out for always being close at hand.
____________________

Notes:

@sam_vinograd. "Am I correct that the lawyer that Bolton told Hill to notify is the same lawyer that directed NSC staff to inappropriately stash call readouts on a codeword server?" Twitter. 15 October 2019. Twitter.com. 15 October 2019. http://bit.ly/2MgzKAM

@WayneDupreeShow. "We told you a couple weeks back, this was the leaker and traitor...Turns out, we were right." Twitter. 15 October 2019. Twitter.com. 15 October 2019. http://bit.ly/2MiT5l6

Baker, Peter and Nicholas Fandos. "Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani 'a Hand Grenade'". The New York Times. 14 October 2019. NYTimes.com. 14 October 2019. https://nyti.ms/35Bx6xl