Seattle
Valued Senior Member
"vein"
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
- Status
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
There won't be an mental health professionals using terms like "Stone Cold Crazy".
yeah Like I writed Vien! ( thanks: my excuse - my daddy burned all my pet mice when I was 4)
It explains how he won the election despite losing the popular vote by more than two full percentage points - about as impressive a display of electoral calculation as I've seen. He wrote off New York and California, for chrissake - that's like sacking your queen in a chess match. Somebody knew what they were doing, and if it wasn't Trump it was somebody he hired.
Meanwhile, I'm not seeing the disarray. I'm seeing consolidation of power, mob boss style.
You seem to be assuming his intention was to govern well.
No, you won't. You won't even know whether you have or not.
Try it.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
do you believe him?
see Schumer on Twitter President
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...migration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...migration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates
Is there a middle road, there, because the Trump administration is being pretty clumsy about it, and right now what I can't read from any of the sound and fury is how much of the current oppositional cacophony will be effective.
Donald Trump is potentially the greatest tragic antagonist the human endeavor has ever produced, but that might also go to his head.
It's not an honorable distinction, of course. But the one thing we might count on ... (except, except, except) ... is his ego and the fact that nobody wants to be a president remembered for sacking the Republic, except there is also a genuine question of whether or not he is competent to forestall such an outcome.
Reagan's people absolutely needed to preserve the Republic; that was at the heart of their pitch. Trump's people ... it's not clear whether they feel the need to preserve the Republic. That they're not smart enough to defend their dissertation doesn't mean they're not stupid enough to not try; the rest is a matter of pitching to the market.
There is no real refinement about the Trump administration's maneuvers; I am, however, uncertain just how graceful, subtle, or even remotely professional they need to be.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Ok, you are a professional, you know nothing about Ruslan Ostashko's views but a few lines I have translated, but you already know he is stupid too. Who wonders. Again, no content but ad hominem.
Because the variants in formulating this do not matter. I would have no problem if you would, once in ten posts, add some specific personal remark, which could really have the aim to help. Like I have tried in the last post to give you a recommendation. You rejected it, your choice, not a problem. But you do it all the time. Against everybody in the forum who argues with you, against people you don't know except having seen three lines translated by a non-native translator. And even your whole environment is full of stupid people.
Why I used "stupid"? Very simple, because this is the only thing which matters. The aim of ad hominem attacks is discreditation of the person, instead of argumentation about the content. "You are stupid" characterizes this aim. There are, of course, variants. But "you are childish" is, in this case, not more than a variant.
LOL. Don't worry. I do not believe your propaganda, even if I sometimes admit that it is a theoretical possibility, as in this case, when I said "Maybe ... I would not exclude this."
That other people are stupid, in comparison with me, has always been a well-known possibility for me. Starting from the school, where the math teacher has allowed me to do what I like, but sometimes, if she made some error, asked me to find it, which was no problem. But I have not made the error to consider my political opponents to be more stupid than me. Else, I would have remained a communist. The pattern in Soviet times was quite similar to America now: The upper class, the intelligence, was much more pro-communist than the uneducated, poor.
History tells that collapsing empires are an extremely dangerous environment, and that the collapse itself will be harmful. The best way to handle collapsing empires is what is controlled demolition for skycrapers - not trying to prevent the collapse, but to minimize the harm caused by the collapse.
Separatism was part of the solution at that time. The Baltic as well as the Ukrainian separatists have had fascists elements at that time too. And in Yugoslavia the Croats were even openly Ustasha fascists. So, even the element that the the enemies of the communists were fascists has been the same. Is Croatia or Kosovo fascist today? I don't know, because it does not matter, except for the people living there. They have got what they wanted, genocidized (with Western support) the Serbs away from their territory, but no further wars are expected to follow. Their own territories are ethnically clear now, formally they are democracies, with the openly fascist parties being part of the political spectrum.
The final result of Soviet and Yugoslav collapse is the same - nationalist, if you like fascist, small countries. The collapse itself was more harmful in Yugoslavia, where the leadership tried to prevent the collapse with force. Which is Clinton's way, to prevent the collapse of the Empire by regime changing away all anti-American governments, internationalism. Trump may become the Gorbachev or Jeltsin of the American empire.
Again with this "stupid" business - this is your invention. I posted no such thing. Why would you invent something like that for me to have posted?
But it's wrong. It's not what I'm posting.
No ad hominem attacks are coming from me. You are inventing them, for some reason.
I did not post "you are stupid". Also, "childish" is not a variant of "stupid". And I did not post "you are childish", either.
You should stop trying to assign words to me I did not use - the practice seems to confuse you about what I actually posted. You get the meanings wrong, your response becomes bizarre and irrelevant, and it's a pain in the ass to have to correct you all the time when you have no good reason to be screwing up like that in the first place. I don't pick my vocabulary randomly, and I mean what I post, not some other stuff you wish I had posted for some reason.
Really? Consider: You have made the error of considering yourself better informed than other people, when you are not. And you have responded to being informed of that fact by claiming you were being labeled "stupid". What would you conclude, if you were me?
FYI: It is quite common for some Americans - a particular demographic faction or type - to mistake accurate observations of ignorance and error for inaccurate accusations of stupidity, and these Americans share many political views with you. Many voted for Trump in part because they had been manipulated into believing that Clinton was an insane warmonger who enjoyed killing people, for example - just like what happened to you. This seems more than a coincidence, to me - you have very consistently aligned your views with those of the victims of fascist propaganda in the US, while occasionally posting direct examples of your gullibility in the face of rightwing authoritarian American marketing professionals - posting nonsense that can have come only from them. This would be nothing unusual, except that you seem to believe you are some kind of libertarian - the oppressive State you supposedly regard as an enemy, whether left or right in origin.
Last edited:
And I repeat: Trump's administration, and its Congressional backing, is fascist. Rightwing violent - your blind spot, if I recall.
The military he has at his disposal is an order of magnitude more capable of global "projection of force" than anything the Soviet Union had at the end, and there is probably no similar economic disintegration at hand - the US collapse, if it happens under Trump, is not going to involve docking its carriers because there's no money for fuel, and it's not going to involve one part of the US fighting another without involving outsiders.
So take the warning - your happy talk about an "isolationist" Trump was based in refusal to recognize who and what he is. He's not a Gorbachev, not a Jeltsin. He's an American conman, with a mob boss mentality - he's violent, and reactionary, and he's going to find whatever enemies he needs where he needs them to be
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Feel free to replace all "stupid" with "childish". It does not matter.
May be some of what I name "ad hominem" are simply personal attacks and defamation, which is, of course, slightly different. Whatever, there would be a simple way to avoid such misunderstandings, as far as they are misunderstandings. One can simply stop to attack the opponents personally, restrict oneself to attacking their ideas.
Everything else is easily misunderstood. Even if I really want to help you, and give you some personal recommendation, this can be easily misunderstood as a personal defamation. So, a return to classical rules of courtesy, which forbids even such personal recommendations if made in a direct way, would be the best solution.
If I were you, I would not write such things, without presenting an explicit quote which proves that I consider myself better informed than other people. And what I conclude from your behavior, I do not write. Except in the few cases where your behavior endangers the whole conversation, because everything is reduced to personal attacks.
This error is quite common in general. One easily observes errors of the other side. One can restrict oneself, in a political discussion, to a discussion of the content - the particular political error, and why it is an error. One can also think that this is useless, because the other side is too stupid to understand the argument. Sometimes this is correct, sometimes not. But independent of the correctness, it will be seen, from the other side, as a personal attack. And, therefore, people who prefer to argue about the arguments, try to avoid such personal attacks.
This, of course, does not prevent me from evaluating which variant of the state is less evil to me, actually. Actually, it is the fascist variant, in comparison with the internationalist variant. The fascist variant will damage the USA, and damage the whole world only implicitly, via the damage to trade with the US. The globalist variant will damage the whole world directly, via wars, color revolutions, regime changes, support of terrorism and so on. The multipolar world is clearly less evil than the unipolar.
If I would have to live in the US, my decision could have been different. I could think that all these regime changes, however harmful to the people of these countries, do not harm me, in fact, I could expect to get some share of the profit of all this too. But the fascist variant could harm me more than the internationalist. But I'm not in the US, and do not plan to go there, not even for a week or so.
It is simply not what matters for me.
Wrong. The Soviet Union was able to destroy the world in a nuclear war. And Russia was it all the time, even in the worst years of Yeltsin rule. The USA has the same ability now. Above are unable to win a war against the other side. So, sorry, there is no order of magnitude difference.
The economic disintegration will be that of the Empire. Not of the US itself. Economic disintegration of the Western world. If you think this will not be harmful, you err. It will be, for all parts, as it was for all parts of the Soviet empire.
Last edited:
How about you read your own post and then read mine.
Answer my question. I said they have the emotional maturity of a 6 year old.And now, Trump is intent on attacking LGBT rights...
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/30/trump-attacks-lgbt-rights-protections-executive-order.html
Is it torch and pitchfork time yet...
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/30/trump-attacks-lgbt-rights-protections-executive-order.html
Is it torch and pitchfork time yet...
No, you do that. You invented "stupid" in the first place, it's your bs, you fix it.
I've been quoting you, for evidence. You don't recognize the evidence, because you refuse to follow the argument - it would require you to accept information you have to deny, to maintain your propaganda addled preconceptions. Clinton is not an insane warmonger who dreams of killing people and pushes for war with Russia, for example. That's bizarre agitprop from the American authoritarian right.
It's predominantly characteristic of a demographic fraction of the American public, which includes the Trump voters. And it's characteristic of your posting. And you favor Trump.
You are making a serious mistake, if you think a fascist regime in the US will favor a multipolar world. Look at Trump's cabinet - oil industry, billionaire capitalists, tax cuts and other US governmental support for American based and American military "defended" multinational companies - where do you think the push for American imperial military force projection is coming from? Who do you think, in the US, pushed for the invasion of Iraq?
So you say. Hence my warning - these guys have set their sights on your back yard.
That's good for keeping Russia safe, and Israel etc, but generally irrelevant in force projection. Nuclear weapons are defensive, and defense is not what counts in what the US has been doing - right?
Yes, it does. You are trying to evaluate the US without information, and it doesn't work. You don't know what "variant" you're dealing with. You think Trump's fascist administration is isolationist, for example.
But I don't, of course. I simply warn you that it will not likely be an implosion in the US, as it was with the much weaker Soviets. It will more likely project - from your point of view, an explosion rather than an implosion. Trump's reactionary and fascistic administration will see opportunity in the disintegration of Western civilization, and have the means to take advantage. Rex Tillerson, say, has been for many years driving US imperial meddling and atrocity fomenting far more diligently and powerfully than Clinton, and he now has the US military under his direct (as compared with his former indirect) influence. He has ambitions in the Arctic, in central Asia, etc, and he is a bigger dog in this fight than Putin.
This is dangerous, and more dangerous for you than for me.
Electoral calculation...seriously? Where is your evidence there was any calculation involved, much less "impressive display of electoral calculation"? The guy got lucky. Even Trump didn't believe he would win. I think you have been nipping the Trump Kool-Aid.
But even if what you said were true, it really isn't relevant. It changes nothing.
And you think that's a stroke of brilliance on Trump's part? Every Republican candidate for POTUS writes off New York and California. Who was the last presidential candidate to not write off California and New York? They all do. You have to go back nearly 3 decades to find one.
Well then you are not looking or deliberately ignoring reality. As previously explained to you, the roll of his recent executive order was an unmitigated disaster. He has only been POTUS for one week and in that week, through his own negligence and incompetence, has managed to single single-handedly split his party, alienate or allies, and cause mass demonstrations against his administration across country and the globe.
And you don't see that? Where have you been? Have you not read the posts in this thread? Have you not understood them?
Yeah, you will. If you hire enough people you will eventually hire some smart people. It's the law of large numbers. And the fact remains, Trump's campaign was far from well managed. He replaced this campaign staff three times in as many months. That's an easily verifiable fact. Contrary to your assertion he didn't select smart competent people; that's why he had to replace them three
Try what?
My makeing text bold in the above
How about you read your own post and then read mine.
Read mine read yours
What question?
If you mean statement 'I said they have the emotional maturity of a 6 year old' I
was not aware making a statement was a question sorry
If that's your opinion fine
If you want my agreement that's a negative
And?
LOL...seriously? It was the first sentence. It's not that hard to find. I suggest you go back read the post.
I guess you unable to recognize questions too. Is "I said they have the emotional maturity of a 6 year old" a question? Are you seriously that obtuse as to confuse a simple declarative sentence with a question?
That's oh so nice of you to let me have my opinion.
Why would I want your agreement? I'd be happier if you used your grey matter to think critically.
Isn't vane something used to indicate which way the wind blows?
So QQ is posting about running in the way the wind blows
Makes sense to me
- Status