The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

it is still involved in arming people. you know the thing you hate the us for doing.
again still involved in arming people
wow a genocidial dictator invited them in

Assad is in no way genocidal, and your claims about Russian participation in arming somebody in Iraq or Afghanistan are propaganda fantasies.

what lies. the russian forces in crimea and the chinese invasion of outlying vietmenese territories are facts. russia and china are far more aggressive than the us

The lies are on your side. What Russia has done in Crimea has not killed anybody, but protected Crimea from the civil war which started in the parts where the Russians have not acted like in Crimea. The Sino-Vietnamese conflict lasted a few weeks and ended with the withdrawal of the Chinese troops, it was started to penalize Vietnam for invading Kampuchea. The minor border conflicts have been finally settled 1991. Instead, the US has fighting Afghan people since 2001 and continues to occupy the country, it invaded Syria and occupies there regions containing oil to steal it, occupies Iraq since 2003, with many hundred thousands, some say millions, of victims.

it completely underminds your excuses for why china's aggression is ok

Except that I never said China's behavior relative to Taiwan is ok.

i read just fine. you did write explicitly, you flat out said the PRC is perfectly of with conquering territory simply because it felt it was historically chinese. that you don't like being called out on your bs doesn't mean im mistaken.

I think that China will, if it can do it, take Taiwan. And that's all. This does not mean that I think taking Taiwan is ok.

i get you have a raging hard on for autocrats and their warcrimes and hate the west cause it democratic. doesn't change the fact your double standards are obvious and completely bullshit

The double standards are on your side.

According to news tonight, the Care taker Trump administration has agreed to unilaterally acknowledge Moroccan claims to West Sahara negating decades of effort to find a peaceful solution, as part of a deal to have the Moroccan Government normalize relationships with Israel.
In doing so this action has threatened a tenuous ceasefire between those who seek independence and self determination and the Moroccan Government.
If the ceasefire fails due to Trumps declaration is this not starting a war?

A ceasefire fail would not be a start of a war, from the point of view of international law. Even if one would count it as starting a war, it would be either Marocco or Polisario who start the war. US (Trump) would count only if they would invest a lot of money to one of the sides under the condition that they have to start the war.

Also his efforts in sidelining the Palestinians may also lead to major confrontation against Israel sometime in the future... Does this count in your mind as potentially starting a war?

A war between Palestinians and Israel is a war between Palestinians and Israel. Either Israel or the Palestinians have to start it. US (Trump) would count only if they would invest a lot of money to one of the sides under the condition that they have to start the war.

Just curious how you reconcile the above with your claims that Trump has not started any wars...

Trump has yet some time to start wars. I'm not a prophet to claim that he will not do this. The possibilities you mentioned would not be sufficient.

The thing is that it is worth considering that when Trump took office he instigated major trade war with China, the banning of Chinese mobile technology including the arrest of Meng Wanzhou.

Arrested Huawei executive hit with new US charges ahead of extradition. The US Justice Department indicted both Huawei and its chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou for racketeering and conspiring to steal American trade secrets on Thursday
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/...oj-trade-secrets-justice-department-zte-china​

and then ... well uhm ... we suddenly have a new virus sweeping the world allegedly originating from China causing the death of millions, the long term disability of many millions, that may or may not have been instigated by individuals not necessarily acting on behalf of the Chinese government. Certainly at the very least, the Chinese Government's reluctance to prevent the virus from spreading from China could in part be blamed on deteriorating relationship with the West.

This is something I would ignore as a conspiracy theory. Starting from the "reluctance to prevent the virus from spreading from China". The arrests against Huawei have been AFAIU mirrored by similar arrests of some Canadians. Officially no connection at all, but one can guess that if there will be no extradition, the fate of those Canadians would improve.

Today now we have a trade war going on with Australia/China with massive long term financial implications. IMO Economic war has already been indicated by the Chinese against Australia mainly because we called for an objective inquiry into the source of this deadly pandemic and are an ally of the USA, who do not overly censor our selves when it comes to freedom of press or speech.

You not only "not overly censor [your]selves when it comes to freedom of press or speech", but, AFAIU, have also contributed in more direct (and illegal) ways to what happened in Hong Kong. At least that is claimed by the Chinese (but I have not verified that myself, so may be that's wrong). If that's true, blame yourself. If not, verbal support of an uprising in another state is also already some support, and can be punished too.

All possibly because Trump decided to flame the Chinese with his approach to negotiating with a hammer to make 'merica great again (tariffs) and getting Americans to pay for it

I doubt that the trade war with Australia can be blamed on Trump.

The point being is that wars are started by many different ways and usually not just due to military maneuvering.
Even now civil war is possible in the USA. with, among other things, a consequential impact on international humanitarian aid which will in turn be potentially a cause of war(s) as hungry people fight to survive.

I consider only wars which have been started with a clear intention to start a war.

so IMO the jury is still out on whether Trump has started any wars...

No. Beyond the triviality that he can yet start one.

 

[Schmelzer]

Agreed. But you did.

Some things Trump did I liked. Most of them because they weakened the globalist's positions worldwide. Those I liked most were, unfortunately, not finished - the deep state prevented this: Withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan. Some were simply good: Some CIA payments to Syrian terrorists have been stopped.

The US Secretary of State doesn't get to start wars, and the involvement of the US in Syria's civil war increased sharply after - not during - Clinton's tenure in Obama's administration. Neither does the Vice President get to start wars, although Biden's support of the Republican invasion and occupation of Iraq - the elephant in the room, by far the most important US military action in the entire area - does count heavily against him.

The Syrian civil war pages mention an escalation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–2013_escalation_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War starting in June 2012, Clinton's tenure is Jan. 2013. Wiki writes about Clinton's part things like

During mid-2012, Clinton formed a plan with CIA Director David Petraeus to further strengthen the opposition by arming and training vetted groups of Syrian rebels. The proposal was rejected by White House officials who were reluctant to become entangled in the conflict, fearing that extremists hidden among the rebels might turn the weapons against other targets.

So, Clinton was even more aggressive than the rest of the administration.

Trump's record contains multiple abrogated treaties, crippling of diplomacy, and threats of violence including nuclear;

Most of this was weakening the global influence of the US, that means, it was IMHO quite positive. The crippling of the diplomacy was also positive, given that US diplomacy already has ceased to create something positive before Trump. In particular, Russia has declared that the US is "недоговороспособно" (unable to make/hold agreements) after several agreements with Kelly have been simply ignored or openly sabotaged by the Pentagon, Obama time. The role of US diplomacy is quite different from usual diplomacy - the deliver the commands to the vassals, and they organize color revolutions against non-vassals. Weakening them is, therefore, even positive. It leads to delivering the commands to the vassals in quite undiplomatic form, presenting those governments as what they really are (vassals who have to follow the commands), destroys coordination in their aggressive structures like NATO, decreases the quality of support of color revolutions, which therefore fail with higher probability.

The claim that one is entitled to take something by force because one's claimed ancestors once took it by force is of course very important in human affairs - it's just not a legal justification for making war and annexing territory.

Full agreement. This was my point.

You have put great emphasis on such legality, remember?

Indeed. And I emphasize such legality now too.

They are recorded events, undeniable in their verifiable occurrence and visible consequences.

Empty claims don't count. Feel free to present evidence.

Given that I have not cared much about China, it is quite possible that you will find something if you really search. Mao was certainly able and willing to commit war crimes. And they supported mass murderers like Pol Pot in Kampuchea. I would not exclude as well Soviet war crimes in Afghanistan - I have heard second hand rumors about such crimes at that time in Soviet Union, but not seen a serious confirmation for this. The first Chechen war would be also a place to search - it was quite chaotic from Russian side, genocidal from Chechen side (there were many Russians living in Chechnya in Soviet times, none after that war) so that I would expect that some Russian soldiers have answered such things symmetrically, and this would already be a war crime.

On your planet of propaganda the claims of the propagandist are not restricted by physical fact, and there is no security for those physically vulnerable to the ambitions of authoritarian empire builders and other organized criminals.
The Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Ukrainians, the Palestinians, the Kurds, are not protected from the ambitions of the leftwing authoritarians of Mandarin China, the rightwing authoritarians of Russia, Israel, or Syria, by paper restrictions on the scope of their myths.

Seems like you have not understood what I have written.

Beyond this, let's note that the Tibetians and Uighurs are Chinese citizens living on Chinese territory, so that this has nothing to do with war, that the Ukrainians are today under essentially Bandera-fascist rule, so that you have to replace "Russia" with "Ukraine", and that the Kurds in Syria are much less repressed than those in NATO member Turkey.

 

[pjdude1219]

Until when and why not anymore? Moreover, are they better off today than when they were a US territory?

1898 till 1902. they were the first possession we took in the spanish american war to gain their independence as for the second question that would be hard to answer.

 

[pjdude1219]

Assad is in no way genocidal,

yes he is

and your claims about Russian participation in arming somebody in Iraq or Afghanistan are propaganda fantasies.

where do you think all the AKs and such are coming from?

The lies are on your side.

nope.

What Russia has done in Crimea has not killed anybody, but protected Crimea from the civil war which started in the parts where the Russians have not acted like in Crimea.

russia strted the civil war and has killed several ukrainians.

The Sino-Vietnamese conflict lasted a few weeks and ended with the withdrawal of the Chinese troops, it was started to penalize Vietnam for invading Kampuchea.

you need to learn how to read. i specifically mentioned a territory. johnsons reef. this was a few years ago.

The minor border conflicts have been finally settled 1991.

well except for attacking vietnamese forces a few years ago.

Instead, the US has fighting Afghan people since 2001 and continues to occupy the country,

we have been fighting a terror group that attacked us there and they were harboring. you can argue that we need an exit stratergy pretending us being there wasn't justified after 9/11 would be a foolish endeavor.

it invaded Syria and occupies there regions containing oil to steal it, occupies Iraq since 2003, with many hundred thousands, some say millions, of victims.

we have not invaded sryia, we are fighting ISIS you know the people your fav state russia is defending in syria.

Except that I never said China's behavior relative to Taiwan is ok.

you have a remarkable ability to miss the point

I think that China will, if it can do it, take Taiwan. And that's all. This does not mean that I think taking Taiwan is ok.

don't worry we all know if they do you'll support it.

The double standards are on your side.

what double standards? unlike you im holding everyone to the same standard. you are literally lying about russia invading ukraine and illegally annexing territory.

 

[Write4U]

And what does all this prove? The US form of government is not benign?

The US is a republic composed of 50 states, a number of territories, and a district, Washington D.C, which is also the country's capital city. The United States was formerly a British Colony and fully acquired its independence from Britain in 1776.

After its independence, the US set out to acquire new territories, some of which were later admitted as states. The government of the United States is quite unique when compared to the government systems of other countries. Several nations tend to model their government around that of the US.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-type-of-government-does-the-united-states-have.html

 

[Jeeves]

The US really profited from that "occupation"...

Big Time

 

[Quantum Quack]

A ceasefire fail would not be a start of a war, from the point of view of international law. Even if one would count it as starting a war, it would be either Marocco or Polisario who start the war. US (Trump) would count only if they would invest a lot of money to one of the sides under the condition that they have to start the war.

So you believe starting a war and being responsible for a war are two different things? ...uh ok..

A war between Palestinians and Israel is a war between Palestinians and Israel. Either Israel or the Palestinians have to start it. US (Trump) would count only if they would invest a lot of money to one of the sides under the condition that they have to start the war.

so I repeat:
So you believe starting a war and being responsible for a war are two different things? ...uh ok..

This is something I would ignore as a conspiracy theory. Starting from the "reluctance to prevent the virus from spreading from China". The arrests against Huawei have been AFAIU mirrored by similar arrests of some Canadians. Officially no connection at all, but one can guess that if there will be no extradition, the fate of those Canadians would improve.

the Canadians were arrested as retaliation for the arrest of the Chinese executive, if I recall correctly.
and sure it is merely a conspiracy theory based on purely circumstantial evidence, coincidence and speculation. Just like most of your theories....but my CT is way more significant than your CT...

• USA China relationship deteriorates significantly
• Private Chinese citizen executive of massive multi-national corp arrested for theft of tech secrets.(December, 2018) (the daughter of the founder of the tech giant )
  
• China retaliates by arresting Canadians.
• Major Chinese mobile 5G tech banned around the globe. (including Australia) because of suspicions regarding national security and covert surveillance.
  
• Covid 19 pandemic ensues, most likely originating in Wuhan China.
• The Wuhan virology lab is probably funded by Huawei which is China's biggest corporation.
  
• Worst affected nation USA
• blah blah blah...

it is obvious that my CT is supported by circumstantial facts...no?
You can't arrest the daughter of the founder of Huawei International and expect quiet acceptance.

You not only "not overly censor [your]selves when it comes to freedom of press or speech", but, AFAIU, have also contributed in more direct (and illegal) ways to what happened in Hong Kong. At least that is claimed by the Chinese (but I have not verified that myself, so may be that's wrong). If that's true, blame yourself. If not, verbal support of an uprising in another state is also already some support, and can be punished too.

The Chinese government can make all sorts of claims just like you do...and rarely support them with facts that matter.

I doubt that the trade war with Australia can be blamed on Trump.

Very poor diplomacy when dealing with a nation that has a severe inferiority complex, has all sorts of consequences.

I consider only wars which have been started with a clear intention to start a war.

so wars started by accident, misadventure, incompetence, miscalculated covert action, risk etc are not wars.... OK... interesting...
The only reason why Iran is not at war with the USA is because the USA acknowledged that Trump made a huge mistake in the assassination of that diplomat by allowing Iran a free shot at their bases. It is not to be underestimated just how big the back down was by the USA. All USA diplomats would have been seriously threatened if he hadn't. Covering Trump's ass has been a full time job for many in the USA government...no doubt..

 

[Quantum Quack]

On Tuesday, the U.S. will pass a key deadline cementing President-elect Biden's victory. The day is known as the "safe harbor" deadline for states to certify their results, to compel Congress to accept those results.​

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/9422...4cTD3RgzCf0OpwFe9N-QsWIPla-SApoOFnlzX_g_Vvfeg

 

[Write4U]

I wonder if Republicans have noticed that Trump has threatened, fired, and replaced only Republicans.
So which party does Trump perceive as the enemy and is in fact dismantling ? It isn't the Democratic party.

The irony is astounding.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I wonder if Republicans have noticed that Trump has threatened, fired, and replaced only Republicans.
So which party does Trump perceive as the enemy and is in fact dismantling ? It isn't the Democratic party.

The irony is astounding.

I have often posted that i thought Trump would lead to the destruction of the Republican party. That being said the best thing that could have happened for the Dems could be Trump.

 

[Write4U]

Further good news. SCOTUS has rejected the mass State assault on Constitutional Law.
All we need now is to avoid attemps at secession and/or civil war. This is not yet over.

Trump's very freedom hangs in the balance and he will resort to any measure to avoid prosecution and conviction of tax evasion, that may cost him the rest of his meager assets.

 

[Write4U]

Those I liked most were, unfortunately, not finished - the deep state prevented this

Define "deep state", not as metaphor, but as a perfect cooperation between federal, state and local governments in the cause of acting to benefit the citizenry they were elected to represent?

That would be a beneficial Deep State, no?

p.s. Deep State is a Turkish invention.

 

[Write4U]

May be of interest to Republicans. The latest attempt was an effort to return to the old Constitution which granted the right to vote only to land-owners.
If they had won, does the majority of Republicans who are NOT landowners realize that they would have forfeited the right to cast any vote. A clear case of if you win,
YOU lose.........Whutttttt.....................

 

[iceaura]

Some things Trump did I liked.

Fictional things you were told he did - especially by Trump himself, a skilled con man who has made a career of high level grifting.

Those I liked most were, unfortunately, not finished - the deep state prevented this:

Trump did not do those things he said he was going to do.
He also did not do the things he says he did, by and large.
You blame a non-existent "deep state" (a very old US wingnut fantasy for why their heroes never get anything done like they promised - it has had many names. For a while it was Jewish or Zionist, then Communist,

That does you some small credit, actually - the very bottom level of fascist suckerdom doesn't know there's anything to blame on anyone. They think Trump actually did pull back from the various wars around Iran, build a significant length of Mexican border wall , stop the spread of Chinese virus by blocking travel from China, reduce the size of government and lower everyone's taxes, triumphantly avoid imminent war in negotiations with North Korea, win a trade battle with China, etc etc etc.

So, Clinton was even more aggressive than the rest of the administration.

But (as you have just discovered, and posted here) she didn't do anything - her "aggression" consisted of writing memos and the like, trying to talk other people into starting wars - or as in Syria, joining them. As Secretary of State, that was the limit of her warmaking power.
You were claiming she started two wars - in the Iraq theater.
QUOTE="Schmelzer, post: 3657655, member: 282758"]Most of this was weakening the global influence of the US, that means, it was IMHO quite positive.[/QUOTE]
Again you celebrate the weakening of US diplomatic and economic influence (I finally figured out what you mean by "globalism" - it's your name for diplomacy and international trade).
That leaves military and paramilitary violence and threat as the primary levers of US foreign policy. You prefer US politicians who - like Trump, a mainstream Republican in the mold of Reagan - rely on military threat and violence (and the extortion, bribery, contracting fraud, etc, they make possible). Your claim to abhor war most of all then becomes another one of those rightwing authoritarian propaganda oddities, about which the same old question pops up yet again:

Are they lying, or are they stupid?

 

[Write4U]

Trump wants the vaccines named after him "Trump Covid vaccine" based on the claim that he financed its development.

President Trump recently touted his administration’s success in handling the rollout of a coronavirus vaccine. He made those remarks while speaking at the Operation Warp Speed summit Tuesday.

The Commander-in-Chief said under his leadership the expected approval of a coronavirus vaccine has come far earlier than anybody thought was possible.

“Very few people thought that this was possible,” he stated. “It has been incredible and it will end the pandemic.”

https://www.oann.com/president-trump-touts-vaccine-development-during-white-house-vaccine-summit/

The reality is that Trump promised purchase of a vaccine, but did not invest a penny of private or federal funds into its development.
There are now some 30,000 lies committed by Trump on public record in the past ~5 years.
This is not a trivial record!

 

[Write4U]

Big Time

And Europe did not?

 

[Write4U]

You blame a non-existent "deep state" (a very old US wingnut fantasy for why their heroes never get anything done like they promised - it has had many names. For a while it was Jewish or Zionist, then Communist

Then Democrats !

 

[Jeeves]

And Europe did not?

Well, Europe got what it got. Not like they had a lot of options to being wedged between superpowers with missiles pointed over their heads from both directions. But American business did some very profitable business, which is what really matters.

 

[Write4U]

Well, Europe got what it got. Not like they had a lot of options to being wedged between superpowers with missiles pointed over their heads from both directions. But American business did some very profitable business, which is what really matters.

After they invested the equivalent of some 130 billion dollars in economic aid.

 

[Schmelzer]

Define "deep state", not as metaphor, but as a perfect cooperation between federal, state and local governments in the cause of acting to benefit the citizenry they were elected to represent?
That would be a beneficial Deep State, no?
p.s. Deep State is a Turkish invention.

This would be some utopia, misnamed. The deep state is certainly not a Turkish invention, at best naming this structure "deep state" may be a Turkish invention. The reality of the deep state is essentially every rule which does not follow the law. The classical example would be the monarchy where the king does not rule, but some guy unknown to the public de facto rules, but officially it looks like the king rules. A famous example being Rasputin. Sometimes such hidden structures appear almost out of necessity, given that the official structures are badly designed and do not work appropriately, so one has to rule in a different way simply out of necessity. More often this is the result of power fights. So the real decisions have to be made in some unofficial backrooms, and the official structures only formally accept those decisions. A standard example would be the parliaments in communist "peoples democracies". Officially they rule, in reality the communist party rules. And in those parties, the real ruler was named a "secretary" - which was, initially, nothing, but this was the position of Stalin, which he has used to gain all the power.

In a democracy, it is quite common that the official institutions don't work as they should and that the real decisions are made by some hidden structures. This guarantees, for example, that there is some continuity in foreign policy and so on.

Fictional things you were told he did - especially by Trump himself, a skilled con man who has made a career of high level grifting.

No, I liked the real things he did. Starting with going out of TPP. Now the other participants have started their own version of it without the US (and, correspondingly, without the special rights for US firms the US wanted to reach), and China is thinking of joining (while the original intention was to construct something excluding China). A real thing with real consequences, namely a useful structure for the multipolar world. Or, while the deep state succeeded stopping Trump from leaving Syria completely, the US has left the most important Kurdish parts in the North, and now Assad's forces and the Russians control these parts. And Trump has really stopped some CIA payments for terrorists, which is known because some groups no longer paid have switched sides and openly said why. The deep state has succeeded here too, the US continues to pay the IS fighters which control a big refugee camp near Al Tanf. I know about this because I know something about what happened on the ground. Including Russian correspondents observing, together with Russian soldiers, a former US base left by US soldiers because Trump has given the command to leave.

But (as you have just discovered, and posted here) she didn't do anything - her "aggression" consisted of writing memos and the like, trying to talk other people into starting wars - or as in Syria, joining them. As Secretary of State, that was the limit of her warmaking power.

LOL. Learn to read, then you will find out that she succeeded with her aim to escalate - the start as well as the serious escalation happened before her tenure.

Again you celebrate the weakening of US diplomatic and economic influence (I finally figured out what you mean by "globalism" - it's your name for diplomacy and international trade).

Nice try. As explained, US diplomacy is no diplomacy in the usual, classical meaning of the word. And globalism does not mean international trade, it means controlling and setting the rules for international trade as well as everything else, like justifying regime changes, "humanitarian" interventions, destruction of the sovereignty of states, sanctions as means to penalize governments if they don't follow the orders and so on. And the globalists do everything possible to prevent international trade if they cannot control it - the point of the globalist project TPP was to prevent China from joining, they do everything to prevent the Chines Silk Road and Russian pipelines.

That leaves military and paramilitary violence and threat as the primary levers of US foreign policy.

No. As military, as paramilitary violence are also part of what the globalists want to do and do whenever possible. The multipolar world I would like to see will not tolerate such things.

You prefer US politicians who - like Trump, a mainstream Republican in the mold of Reagan - rely on military threat and violence (and the extortion, bribery, contracting fraud, etc, they make possible).

No. I have seen more of this under Obama rule than under Trump. And I'm afraid to see more of this during the next four years.