The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

That you don't accept the idea that one can use propaganda sources to extract useful information from them (knowing the techniques how to do this) is your problem

It's a fine idea. It's just that you keep failing to do it. You lack the information necessary for extracting information from what sophisticated rightwing American marketing professionals feed you.
You're ignorant - willfully ignorant. And you think that not being stupid will protect you from going wrong in ignorance? It won't. It hasn't.

"You were the guy posting here that Trump was more likely to be isolationist than Clinton because of ..."
So what?

So he's your isolationist.

You post something silly like that, the goofiest crap imaginable straight from the most blatant Republican Party propaganda feeds,

after going on for months and paragraphs about how good you are at finding the real information in propaganda,

you own it.

Trump is a fascist, a rightwing authoritarian and cuadillo wannabe, who's enemy group du jour (and all fascist strongmen seem to need them) is "Muslims" - also known as "terrorists". He has command of the world's premier military, currently based in more than a hundred countries around the planet, and he has promised repeatedly to kill all Islamic terrorists and their families anywhere he can find them on the planet.

Trump is a Republican. The Republican Party is devoted to building up and using a strong US military that protects the US by military force applied in foreign countries - fighting them "there" before they get "here". This is the Party that opened military hostilities against Libya, that installed Hussein in Iraq, organized the UN war to curb his invasion of Kuwait, and launched the Iraq War to remove him, that started the US war in Afghanistan, that started the US military undermining of the government in Syria, and so forth.

Trump is psychologically defective - narcissistic, amoral, predatory, and in need of physical dominance. Compared with Clinton, he is notably and obviously more psychiatrically problematic and psychologically bent toward violence - as are his supporters, and his allies.

Trump is President. That means his greatest power and widest scope of action is in foreign affairs - that's where he can use his military, and be violent on his own recognizance, without answering to the checks and balances of domestic political reality.

That's your isolationist.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"A top executive of Washington Post who wished to remain anonymous , indicated today that the editorial team that has been tracking President Trump's telephone activities using unverifiable sources face being removed from their duties due to the massive numbers of law suit currently being prepared against the owners of the Washington Post"
Src: (to be advised)

Is the above Fake News or not?
Why would you believe it?
Why wouldn't you believe it?

 

[joepistole]

Howard Stern, Trump's decades long friend, said the presidency will be detrimental to Trump's health, and more specifically to his mental health. Below are a few excerpts from and article published in the Business Insider. I suggest everyone read the article. It provides some interesting insight into what drives The Donald.

"So in the last week, where polls show that Trump's approval rating is historically low, you have to wonder how he's taking it all. Stern has some thoughts, and it sounds like he thinks Trump cares quite a bit about his public perception.

"I know something about Donald Trump," Stern said on his radio show recently.

"He really does want to be loved, he does want people to really love him, that drives him a lot. I think he has a very sensitive ego. And when you’re president of the United States people are going to be very, very critical and I think in his mind right now he’s saying 'I want to protect the country'… I think his motive is 'People will love me because I’m going to keep terrorists out of the country.' I think he’s genuinely shocked when people come back and say, 'Wait a second, there’s more to this.'"

"He loves the press, he lives for it," said Stern. "He loves people in Hollywood. He only wants to hobnob with them."

Stern's theory is that Trump's whole run for presidency was just a negotiation maneuver to get more money out of NBC while he and the network were discussing a new season of "The Apprentice."

http://www.businessinsider.com/howard-stern-donald-trump-wants-to-be-liked-2017-2

I think it's obvious Trump is a narcissist and doesn't tolerate criticism well. Yeah, I think we have a mad man in the oval office....Mad President Trump, Trump the Mad.

 

[joepistole]

Trump, only 2 weeks into office, has the worst job approval rating in history. Typically, job approval goes downhill from here on out for American presidents. Trump may wind up even more unpopular than Congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating/

 

[spidergoat]

Howard Stern, Trump's decades long friend, said the presidency will be detrimental to Trump's health, and more specifically to his mental health. Below are a few excerpts from and article published in the Business Insider. I suggest everyone read the article. It provides some interesting insight into what drives The Donald.

....

I listen to Stern daily, it was a trivial comment. Don't know why it got picked up by the press.

 

[douwd20]

Trump, only 2 weeks into office, has the worst job approval rating in history. Typically, job approval goes downhill from here on out for American presidents. Trump may wind up even more unpopular than Congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating/

And worst after running on a anti-Wall Street platform he is barely in office two weeks and he's already helping them out. No wonder the market is soaring. The rubes will still love him even as he screws them like every Republican president.

..the president’s actions constitute a broad effort to loosen regulations on banks and other major financial companies, put into motion by a president who campaigned as a champion of working Americans and a critic of Wall Street elites. On Friday, Mr. Trump said his actions were intended to help both Wall Street and workers as his administration eases constraints on banks and enables them to lend to companies,

Trump Moves to Roll Back Obama-Era Financial Regulations

And this GREAT line:

The president is quoted in the article: "We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that had nice businesses, they can’t borrow money." Yes, he is advocating changing the law for the benefit of friends of his. Moreover, he is bold enough to come right out and say it.

​

Next up tax cuts to the rich can profit handsomely with zero regulations while offloading the risk to the public.

 

[Schmelzer]

It's a fine idea. It's just that you keep failing to do it.

You think so. I disagree. That's all.

So he's your isolationist.

No. There is some chance that he will, in some aspects, follow an isolationist policy. That's all I claim.

And, given that TPP is already busted, which would be what an isolationist would do, this prediction is already supported by real politics.

Trump is a fascist, a rightwing authoritarian and cuadillo wannabe...
Trump is a Republican. The Republican Party is ...
Trump is psychologically defective - narcissistic, amoral, predatory, ...
That's your isolationist.

No. It is not "my" at all. It is your president. Have fun with him. And I do not think he is an isolationist. I think he is more isolationist than Clinton, that's all. And up to now we have not much information about what he will really do. We can only guess.

That the collapse of the US empire is the most dangerous thing for mankind up to now is clear. With Trump, the mankind has imho a slightly greater chance for survival. You disagree, ok.

 

[joepistole]

The Trump administration got caught in yet another lie. Trump is destroying the credibility of the White House and the credibility of the nation.

The White House said only 109 people were affected by Trump's executive order, but now, because of a law suit: we learn 100,000 people were affected.

 

[Michael 345]

Well, Homer certainly couldn't be worse than The Donald.

Is it worth noting Homer has his fingers on a Nuclear Power Plant?

 

[iceaura]

You think so. I disagree. That's all.

There's one more thing: you are ignorant in the matter. You "disagree" without information.

No. There is some chance that he will, in some aspects, follow an isolationist policy. That's all I claim.

No, you claimed that he is likely to be more isolationist than somebody like Clinton, because Clinton is a psychopath and Trump is a businessman.

And, given that TPP is already busted, which would be what an isolationist would do, this prediction is already supported by real politics.

You keep telling yourself that, without informing yourself about the TPP - it was a trade deal, already on the ropes. Trump wants to abrogate it unilaterally, renegotiate it by force, and bully people into better terms with his military. That kind of tactic engineers collapse, and or speeds it up.
QUOTE="Schmelzer, post: 3435001, member: 282758"]That the collapse of the US empire is the most dangerous thing for mankind up to now is clear. With Trump, the mankind has imho a slightly greater chance for survival.[/QUOTE]
Without Trump, there was a much better chance of noncollapse, avoiding the worst of the danger. With Trump, the collapse - if inevitable - is faster and harder and involves military with bases in more than a hundred countries.

And I do not think he is an isolationist. I think he is more isolationist than Clinton, that's all.

And you posted why. That makes him your isolationist. You have no idea how silly that is, and you refuse to learn, and so you own it.

 

[Schmelzer]

There's one more thing: you are ignorant in the matter.

This is simply your claim. You like to repeat this very often, but repetition is not an argument.

No, you claimed that he is likely to be more isolationist than somebody like Clinton, because Clinton is a psychopath and Trump is a businessman.

The point being? There have been many points why I think he will be more isolationist. But those you mentioned are not among them. A psychopat may be isolationist too, and a businessmen may be a globalist.

You keep telling yourself that, without informing yourself about the TPP - it was a trade deal, already on the ropes. Trump wants to abrogate it unilaterally, renegotiate it by force, and bully people into better terms with his military. That kind of tactic engineers collapse, and or speeds it up.

As usually, you cannot without defamation. Then, what is your point? Have I claimed that his tactic will be successful? No.

There are some circumstances where his tactic may minimize harm. This would happen if the dollar as the world reserve currency crashes. This this hit the trade of the whole world, but especially the trade with America. But if some time before this crash the trade has been already reduced by some isolationist policy, successful or not, the harm will be at the whole less serious, because distributed over a longer period. But without this crash in mind I would not say too that such a tactic will be successful.

Without Trump, there was a much better chance of noncollapse, avoiding the worst of the danger. With Trump, the collapse - if inevitable - is faster and harder and involves military with bases in more than a hundred countries.

So, this is obviously the basic difference. You hope that with Clinton the empire could have been preserved, the collapse avoided. I'm sure the collapse of the empire is unavoidable. This makes, of course, a big difference, a very big. If one thinks that Clinton would be able to prevent the collapse, and one lives in America, preferring Clinton would be, indeed, reasonable.

Except that even in this case it would be only a shift of the problem. It would reappear after four years.

 

[Quantum Quack]

so ...uhm you guys are fighting over who is the better propaganda specialist? that it?
Who can distinguish the lies from the truth when it is all lies? Just a different degree of fallacy.

Schmelzer,
What do you mean by collapse of the Empire?

The TPP was a number of years in the negotiation and that is all it was... negotiation.
Do you think during that process of many years the member nations haven't learned something about free trade in an increasingly globalized environment etc?
So the POTUS wants to renegotiate a trade deal... so what? How is that leading to a collapse as you say and why not an improvement instead?

Seems to me that Trumps strategy is to build up USA bluster so that it has a stronger position at the negotiation table.

"Old trade union strategy...place a gambit bid and work down rather than up"

Observations:
Obama used power in a "push from behind empowerment" basis. (long term vision)
Trump uses power in the way of an extortionist, in your face bullying. (short term vision)

 

[iceaura]

"There's one more thing: you are ignorant in the matter."
This is simply your claim. You like to repeat this very often, but repetition is not an argument.

I have posted reams of evidence, including (for example) explicit acknowledgements by you of personal ignorance, made in the course of you denying your need for information - such as your explicit and repeated denial of any need to inform yourself about the context of the Clinton videos you "evaluated". All you need to know is that they actually feature Clinton, and are not faked somehow, you said - remember?

But that was just for you, as a favor, in an attempt to persuade in a civilized manner - your ignorance is obvious to most here, simply because they live amid the circumstances you don't know about. I can safely assume it, without bothering about "evidence" etc, on this forum.

There have been many points why I think he will be more isolationist. But those you mentioned are not among them.

You posted them.

Then, what is your point? Have I claimed that his tactic will be successful? No.

You claimed that a guy like Trump is more likely to engineer a soft landing for the US collapse. That claim is undermined, not supported, by his manner of handling the TPP.

There are some circumstances where his tactic may minimize harm.

Not the current circumstances, though. And it was in the current circumstances that Trump was supposedly less dangerous than Clinton.

 

[Schmelzer]

so ...uhm you guys are fighting over who is the better propaganda specialist? that it?

Not really. Simply all those repeated personal attacks become too boring.

What do you mean by collapse of the Empire?

The end of the unipolar world, and the shift toward a multipolar one. This will have some important consequences, in particular it will be the end of the US dollar as the world reserve currency. In the ideal, this may change very slowly - state A with state B start to do all their trade not in dollar, but in their own currencies, holding a little less dollar reserves and a little more reserves of the other state. So they will sell the dollars. If this happens step by step, this may not be that problematic. But if there starts a panic, and all states start to sell all their dollar reserves at the same time, the situation will be different.

The TPP was a number of years in the negotiation and that is all it was... negotiation.
Do you think during that process of many years the member nations haven't learned something about free trade in an increasingly globalized environment etc?
So the POTUS wants to renegotiate a trade deal... so what? How is that leading to a collapse as you say and why not an improvement instead?

Ask iceaura. I do not think that this particular action will lead to collapse. But it may damage the trade between US and those states which do not accept the renegotiation proposals. And improve the trade of these other states with China, which the US tried to exclude.

I have posted reams of evidence, including (for example) explicit acknowledgements by you of personal ignorance, made in the course of you denying your need for information

and forgetting about the context. Of course, I do not need all the information - nor the color of his hair, nor the size of his hands matters. Some context does not matter too. It does not follow that I'm ignorant about the important things. And, don't forget, the things which are important for me. Say, a civil war in the US on racial base may be a big problem for you, but not for me. The same as with the civil war in the Ukraine, which was a problem for me, I have lived there some time a year before, but not for you, you are far away.

- such as your explicit and repeated denial of any need to inform yourself about the context of the Clinton videos you "evaluated".

I have informed myself about the context which was relevant for understanding the text. A little bit too late, acknowledged. I have also taken into account what you have claimed about the context. This was only able to moderately shift the impression.

All you need to know is that they actually feature Clinton, and are not faked somehow, you said - remember?

This is the most important part. Some of your claims - say, that it was her aim to sound tough - I have taken into account. Some other - namely that the video was distributed by evil right networks - are irrelevant.

You posted them.

But not as evidence that he is isolationist. If you disagree - please with quote and link.

You claimed that a guy like Trump is more likely to engineer a soft landing for the US collapse. That claim is undermined, not supported, by his manner of handling the TPP.

You think so. I don't.

Not the current circumstances, though. And it was in the current circumstances that Trump was supposedly less dangerous than Clinton.

Of course, his position about the war in Syria is, as far as one can tell up to now, much less dangerous than Clinton's. Who had a no fly zone, meaning war with Russia, in her program.

 

[iceaura]

"You claimed that a guy like Trump is more likely to engineer a soft landing for the US collapse. That claim is undermined, not supported, by his manner of handling the TPP. "
You think so. I don't.

You're ignorant about Trump, I'm not. He's a familiar type in the US, which gives me an advantage, and also I am more alert to rightwing authoritarian features than you are - that being the longtime and ever-present direction of threat, in the US.

I have informed myself about the context which was relevant for understanding the text.

No, you haven't. You don't know what context was important for understanding the text. And you refuse to be informed.

and forgetting about the context. Of course, I do not need all the information - nor the color of his hair, nor the size of his hands matters. Some context does not matter too. It does not follow that I'm ignorant about the important things.

You were ignorant about the important things. You still are. That 's how you got played by some American marketing professionals, who sold you Trump as the less violent and more isolationist candidate.

But not as evidence that he is isolationist.

As description of his supposed greater likelihood to withdraw from military assault and intervention in foreign countries - part of his supposed greater isolationist tendencies, which was all bs.

You can't walk it back, dude - a pratfall like that, after all that crap you posted about gleaning information from propaganda, is too flagrant.

And it was unnecessary. There are several better informed arguments for Trump's being a less threatening commander of the US military, to you, than Clinton - starting with the possibility that the generals would rebel against Trump's incompetence and carelessness in a seriously dangerous situation (note that in the initial recent fiasco Mattis was apparently not in the loop), whereas with Clinton they might have been persuaded to do something foolhardy; continuing with the observation that Trump's proclivities for torture and petty revenge and short-sighted expressions of bigotry will alienate the US from most potential allies, curbing his potential to do damage; including the observation that Trump is likely to screw up so badly in the US that he cannot launch anything overseas - so badly that even the wingnut dominated House cuts him off of money and resources.

All you have to do is extricate yourself from the American rightwing propaganda operation - against Clinton, for Trump, any of it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The end of the unipolar world, and the shift toward a multipolar one.

Can you explain this a little further?
include if you wish,
Why do you think that the idea of a World Government is not simply a matter of transition between the USA unipolar world to a United Nations unipolar world ( with out the dominance of the USA as it stands) ?

 

[Schmelzer]

You're ignorant about Trump, I'm not.

Of course. You cannot do without it. In Germany, we have a proverb, Eigenlob stinkt. Oh, I see a translation: A man's praise in his own mouth stinks. Some other "you are stupid" BS disposed.

And it was unnecessary. There are several better informed arguments for Trump's being a less threatening commander of the US military, to you, than Clinton - starting with the possibility that the generals would rebel against Trump's incompetence and carelessness in a seriously dangerous situation (note that in the initial recent fiasco Mattis was apparently not in the loop), whereas with Clinton they might have been persuaded to do something foolhardy; continuing with the observation that Trump's proclivities for torture and petty revenge and short-sighted expressions of bigotry will alienate the US from most potential allies, curbing his potential to do damage; including the observation that Trump is likely to screw up so badly in the US that he cannot launch anything overseas - so badly that even the wingnut dominated House cuts him off of money and resources.

Fine that you also give some arguments. The point that Trump will be a weak president because the establishment will fight against him is also well-known to me. I think I have even mentioned a variant of it, as part of the discussion that Putin might, as well, prefer Clinton. Because Putin clearly prefers an administration able to make contracts - and hold them. Which is not guaranteed if the generals rebel. As they already have in Syria against Obama/Kerry, by attacking the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor to sabotage the ceasefire agreement.

I don't think Trump's support for torture matters much, during the Bush time it has not mattered, at least not at the political level, say, Merkel had no problem with this at all.

You can't walk it back, dude

You completely misunderstand my point. It is purely educational, teaching you (you seem to need it) that personal attacks are not helpful in discussions. Moreover, if they can easily shown to be inaccurate.

Can you explain this a little further?
include if you wish,
Why do you think that the idea of a World Government is not simply a matter of transition between the USA unipolar world to a United Nations unipolar world ( with out the dominance of the USA as it stands)?

Hm, as a standard reference to the meaning of the terms one can use Putin's 2007 Munich speech.

No, I do not see any more shift toward a United Nations unipolar world. The US have never liked it, and I think neither Russians nor Chinese will support one. For Russia, recovery of their sovereignty is the almost official program. If even the big players don't like it, even if it would give them, if united, power over the weak, it has no real chance. Because the weak players don't like it too, if it reduces its sovereignty.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hm, as a standard reference to the meaning of the terms one can use Putin's 2007 Munich speech.

No, I do not see any more shift toward a United Nations unipolar world. The US have never liked it, and I think neither Russians nor Chinese will support one. For Russia, recovery of their sovereignty is the almost official program. If even the big players don't like it, even if it would give them, if united, power over the weak, it has no real chance. Because the weak players don't like it too, if it reduces its sovereignty.

I have watched at least the first 25 minutes of his famous speech in 2007 and later, when rested, I may watch the remaining. Surprisingly he and I share the same view that ultimately the UN must be the final authority on the use of nuclear weapons thus stating quite clearly that the UN and the UN alone ( not NATO or other) should be the next Unipolar system that ensures it's individual member nations their sovereignty.(multipolar)

The problem is that for the USA to relinquish control of it's nuclear weapons including it's orbiting space initiatives, it would have to deal with it's inherent paranoia associated with doing so and have very good reason to even consider it as being beneficial to it.

This unfortunately as you have suggested may not happen with out a significant collapse of the USA economic/military complex with severe global repercussions so much so that the notion of any human civilization on this planet itself becomes tenuous.

To put the "big button" in the hands of the UN instead of the POTUS is at present unthinkable to most USA citizens, politicians and leaders ( including corporate USA )

So we are left with a dead end bind no matter which way we turn. Except now we have a common enemy that may force our hand to move in a more positive direction. Climate change and what that will inevitably mean to the USA and the world regardless of it's denial or acceptance. ... an echo..."so much so that the notion of civilization itself becomes tenuous."

For the USA to relinquish control of it's weapons and become to it's perception vulnerable to external control thus suffering what it has dissed out over the post cold war years to others is utterly foreign to the American thinker. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms goes a lot further than the civilian population, I dare say and extends to a nations right to bear arms to defend itself from shadows and reflections of it's own insecurities, fears and paranoia

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is worth noting that Trump may force the worlds hand in his quest to make the USA great again, the world may indeed decide together, united, to remove the power that Trump intends to abuse destroying it or placing it in the hands of a new reformed UN.
It has often been considered in this scenario that a human cull of about 75% would be the out come. Leaving a sustainable 25% to rebuild civilization again but do it with the benefit of hindsight and hopefully with tragic lessons learned.

 

[iceaura]

The point that Trump will be a weak president because the establishment will fight against him is also well-known to me

You don't know what "the establishment" is, in this case. And you are wrong about its curbing influence making Trump a weak President - to the extent the more competent are successful in curbing him, they would more likely make him stronger, as happened with Reagan.

I think I have even mentioned a variant of it, as part of the discussion that Putin might, as well, prefer Clinton. Because Putin clearly prefers an administration able to make contracts - and hold them

Putin clearly preferred Trump - the obvious reason would be that Trump is more vulnerable. He doesn't need "contracts" from Trump - he needs chaos, in the US government, so that he can re-expand Russia's imperial influence - what you call "sovereignty", expanded into Ukraine and Syria and so forth. You may be familiar with the principle, when two fascists meet? It's familiar enough in the West to turn up in popular song: "Two little fascists will fight until // one little fascist does the other one's will". Putin's seems pretty sure he's going to come out on top, with Trump.

I don't think Trump's support for torture matters much, during the Bush time it has not mattered, at least not at the political level, say, Merkel had no problem with this at all.

W didn't torture Germans, and kept things deniable - and even so, it apparently cost the US allies, support, and cooperation. Trump, if not prevented, would have no such restraint. That would cost the US even more.