The Trump Presidency

[Quantum Quack]

If it's Trump, he just moves operations somewhere else. He doesn't like the place anyway.

If a million(s) strong mass sit in at the White House was organized demanding/requesting Trumps Tax returns and that he face an anti-corruption task force I think it wont matter where he is. In fact being in Trump Towers would work against him.
The tax return is one of his greatest weaknesses IMO as is his vulnerability to charges of corruption and his inability to prove otherwise...due to his lack of transparency and family business dis-engagement.

 

[Schmelzer]

And if Trump can arrange a war that looks good to that base, it's game over - he's got the Republican endorsement and backing as long as he wants it

Only if the war can be sold as a success. Which is quite improbable if Iran is attacked. Here some analysis of what one has to expect in this case: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/u-s-against-iran-a-war-of-apples-vs-oranges/
There is only one point where I disagree with the Saker:

In the case of the US attack on Iran, only a total ignoramus would suppose that as soon as the Iranians detect the US attack they would scramble their mostly dated air force to try to achieve air superiority or that they would hope to stop the US attack using their air-defenses. Let me remind everybody here that Hezbollah made exactly zero use of their air defenses (only MANPADS anyway) during the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 and that did not prevent Hezbollah from inflicting upon the IDF the most crushing defeat in their history.

Here I agree only as far as that an US air superiority would not decide the war in favor of the US. But, different from Hezbollah, the Iran has modern air defense, S-300, which is good enough to cause a lot of damage to the US air force.

say something like this happens at the White House , an indefinite sit in...?

Too expensive to pay for it. To pay Americans to do such things would be more expensive than Ukrainians.
Don't forget, you also power for escalation, else all this will be simply ignored. For escalation you need forces ready to act like the Nazis in the Ukraine, and, on the other side, a police force remaining as passive as the Ukrainian police at that time:

From what I have seen up to now from Berkeley, the "antifa" storm troops are not nearly as strong, and the police not nearly as weak. So, forget about escalation. And even in case of such escalation, Trump could simply go to places in flyover America where his power base is localized. Without such power to escalate, I would agree with iceaura:

They'll have to wait until their voting base has turned on Trump. If they even try to get rid of him before then, they lose - Trump captured the Republican voter, hearts and minds. So they would need a long and serious media campaign of vilification, on the media the Republican core voter trusts.

The question is if there is, yet, enough media power under control globalist's which has such trust. This is something I don't know. I doubt, but this doubt is based on Germany, where those who support AfD (~ 25% in East Germany, less in the West) completely reject the whole mainstream press as "Lügenpresse". According to European as well as Russian prejudices, Americans are much more sheeple who believe all the nonsense presented by the media. So, this may be different in America.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer,
How would you assess the North Korean issue?
Also the "mass sit in " as suggested would not be seeking a change in Government only that issues of corruption be investigated. If that led to a change of government then that would be up to the government.
That Trump deliver on his campaign promises to release his tax returns and separate himself from his personal businesses.( fair and reasonable protest IMO)

 

[Seattle]

Trump hasn't done anything yet except by executive orders. Just wait until he actually has to be President for a while and deal with Congress and new world issues as they come up.

So far his BS works. It won't work when an actual crisis crops up and he can't just bark out an order as a solution. The Republicans (and his own actions) will have to be what reels him in or brings him down.

He is going to cancel "Obama care" without really having anything better to replace it with. This is not going to be popular for all the people who lose health care coverage.

N. Korea just launched a test rocket. He will issue some ultimatum but unless he actually invades N. Korea he is going to be on the record as backing down. He isn't going to bully China either. He has already learned that on the Taiwan issue.

Just give him a few months of actually being President and then the melt down might actually happen. His press secretary will be the first to go. He might quickly get to a point where not enough people want to work in his government to keep it going.

It won't take long for a melt down. He is already thinking about just rewriting the travel ban. Eventually even his conservative appointed judges won't support him. Just because they are conservative doesn't mean they are crazy or unprofessional.

No one, who isn't crazy, will be able to work with Trump for long.

 

[wellwisher]

The ace in the hole that Trump has is a lot of Democrats in Congress and the Senate are up for reelection in 2018. Many of these are from states that Trump won in the general election. The antics of the left, which is delay, disagree and disparage, is not going to help these people get reelected. This will backfire, since the American people voted for change and they wanted the swamp drained. All the hot air from the left is causing the swamp scum to rise to the top of the fake media, where it can be skimmed off. It appears that Trump is keeping them in hot air by throwing them a bone to pick every now and then. Behind the scenes, the foundations of change are in motion. Trump does not broadcast his key moves to the enemy, since that will embolden the enemy. It is better to keep them off guard and/or funnel then where you can pick them off.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The ace in the hole that Trump has is a lot of Democrats in Congress and the Senate are up for reelection in 2018. Many of these are from states that Trump won in the general election. The antics of the left, which is delay, disagree and disparage, is not going to help these people get reelected. This will backfire, since the American people voted for change and they wanted the swamp drained. All the hot air from the left is causing the swamp scum to rise to the top of the fake media, where it can be skimmed off. It appears that Trump is keeping them in hot air by throwing them a bone to pick every now and then. Behind the scenes, the foundations of change are in motion. Trump does not broadcast his key moves to the enemy, since that will embolden the enemy. It is better to keep them off guard and/or funnel then where you can pick them off.

How will he deal with issues of obvious corruption? ( business affairs and family nepotism)

 

[Schmelzer]

How would you assess the North Korean issue?

I would not access it at all. There is nothing one can do there. If the US starts a war, expect Seoul be hit by a nuclear weapon, with millions dead. Not a good idea. Everything short of starting war has been already done. So live with it.

The Iranian issue is much more interesting. Russia sends clear signals that its cooperation with Iran will even improve. Some Russian observers have speculated that Trump may want to offer some deal like you can do in the Ukraine what you like, if we can do in Iran what we like, but they all agree that this has zero chance in Russia. For several reasons, one of them being that Russia does not want the Western Ukraine even for free.

Here http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/02/05/iran-throws-the-ball-into-trumps-court/ another opinion about the Iran. The Iran is now also much more interested in strengthening the relations with Russia, they have made it much easier for Russia to fly over Iran if they want to reach Syria. Lawrow has made a clear statement that Iran is necessary for fighting Daesh https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iran-not-excluded-anti-terrorist-coalition-lavrov/

It seems also clear that Trump has no chance to divide Russia and China. http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakum...n-trump-russia-and-china-strengthen-alliance/ This corresponds to what I think - it would be stupid for Putin to endanger the Eurasian cooperation even a single bit because of some Trump. Given that Iran and China have supported Russia when Russia was under US attack, it will heavily improve the cooperation if Russia now supports Iran or China if they are under attack.

One reason why Trump has no chance is, btw, democracy as well as the actual liberal behavior. Nobody can be sure how long Trump remains in power, and who comes after this. But all the major Eurasian powers think about long range consequences. Up to now, this was not a problem with the US managed democracy too. Everybody was sure that the US policy essentially remains unchanged, independent of the party which plants the president. This has changed. The US is actually unpredictable. Not that much because Trump as a person is unpredictable, but because of the greater conflict behind this, between pro-American and globalist elite factions. To cooperate with an obviously unpredictable force makes not much sense.

So, the main Eurasian powers will improve their cooperation, completely independent of what happens in the US.

Also the "mass sit in " as suggested would not be seeking a change in Government only that issues of corruption be investigated. If that led to a change of government then that would be up to the government. That Trump deliver on his campaign promises to release his tax returns and separate himself from his personal businesses.( fair and reasonable protest IMO)

Mass protests are never fair and reasonable. I would suggest you not to dream about powerful mass protests in the US.

I tell you this, being a participant, even activist, of such a powerful mass protest, which was a full success, namely the protests which in 1989 lead to the end of communist rule in Eastern Germany. But this was, in retrospect, an easy game: The government was hated by the whole population, and it had lost its main power support, namely the Soviet army, which, under Gorbachev, quite openly declared that it does no longer care about the preservation of this regime. But even this powerful and peaceful movement has, after some time, changed its political character completely. The initial leaders - mostly from the left, green, critical of many things, but dreaming about some socialism with human face or so, completely lost control of it, the movement became openly anticommunist. (Not a problem for me, I was anticommunist from the start, but the left whined a lot about this.)

The situation with such mass protests is much more problematic if the other side has public support too. And even more if that public support of the other side depends on regional differences. Then you can expect counter-movements, and these counter-movements have a good chance to rule in these other regions. In this case, a civil war is something to be expected.

I could be cynical and say that a civil war in America is a good think for the rest of the world, the Americans would have something to care about and not start new wars with other countries, and wish success to above sides. I guess you have a different opinion about this.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I could be cynical and say that a civil war in America is a good think for the rest of the world, the Americans would have something to care about and not start new wars with other countries, and wish success to above sides. I guess you have a different opinion about this.

but it is the whole point of the protest to push the prospect of revolution as being very likely if the protestors are ignored.

 

[Quantum Quack]

News has just landed that the USA has been involved in another seriously botched military adventure, since Trumps inauguration, this time in Afghanistan.
Propaganda(?) tells of many civilian causalities but no mention as to the success of the actual mission.
re:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/civilian-casualties-claimed-in-joint-raid-by-u-s-afghanistan-forces/
Cred: 6/10
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-13/afghan-joint-operation-deaths/8264290
Cred 6/10
It certainly seems that the rules of engagement have changed. Specifically that civilian collateral deaths are being more tolerated.

"The normalization of collateral civilian deaths"

 

[iceaura]

Only if the war can be sold as a success. Which is quite improbable if Iran is attacked.

It only has to be sold as a necessity and patriotic demand, to Trump's base. And those people bought Trump - clearly selling them stuff is no problem.

Especially, foreign wars.

The Iraq War was sold as success to those people (until Obama screwed it up), likewise the Afghanistan War, the Vietnam War (until the liberals cut and ran), the invasion of Grenada and Panama, and so forth. All the wars of the US. The only US war they list as a failure was the Civil War, because they lost it.

 

[Schmelzer]

It only has to be sold as a necessity and patriotic demand, to Trump's base. And those people bought Trump - clearly selling them stuff is no problem.
Especially, foreign wars.
The Iraq War was sold as success to those people (until Obama screwed it up), likewise the Afghanistan War, the Vietnam War (until the liberals cut and ran), the invasion of Grenada and Panama, and so forth. All the wars of the US. The only US war they list as a failure was the Civil War, because they lost it.

This is, of course, a point. But don't forget that some points have changed:
1.) Trump does not control the media. Instead, the enemies of Trump control the media. This is essential if you want to sell your own war as a success. See #729, a classical example of a military action which is, I would guess, in no way different from many others like the Obama drone wars. But with unfriendly media it looks like "another seriously botched military adventure".
2.) It is quite predictable that the US will simply and openly loose a war against Iran. In the same way and for similar reasons they have lost the Vietnam war: Russia will support Iran, but you cannot attack Russia in retaliation because this would lead to the Big Nuclear War. Between Russia and Iran you have not much, essentially nothing to prevent smuggling weapons (Caspian Sea, Russian ally Armenia, Shia Aserbaidshan, former Soviet republic Turkmenistan), so there is no chance to block delivery of high quality air defense weapons. Or of missiles able to shoot aircraft carriers as well as airbases. And the US without air superiority far away from the homeland is nothing.
3.) Where do you want to put the base for the boots on the ground? Iraq is Shia, so you will have to face Iran-supported boots on the ground already during the preparation time. Same in Afghanistan - mostly Sunni, but enough Shia to fight a war already during the preparation time. Saudi Arabia is already at war with the Houthis (Shia), which somehow manage to "find" ballistic rockets to attack even Riad. Turkey? Hm, not completely impossible, but you have to do a lot for this, starting with extradicting Gülen (think about the liberal media reaction). Pakistan? Hm, also not completely impossible. But see http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/02/12/india-expects-trump-to-punish-pakistan/
4.) The main powerful anti-Iranian force in the US is the Israel lobby. But it will be easy to explain Israel that it is not a good idea to start a real war against Iran. Think about some Calibre missiles in Lebanon formally owned by Hizbollah.

but it is the whole point of the protest to push the prospect of revolution as being very likely if the protestors are ignored.

This is what I said. Protests make sense if they have the power to escalate. But who has to be afraid of escalation toward a civil war?

Think about the question who will escalate, who fill fight, and who will be the enemy for those ready to fight. On the one side, you have the police. The American police is happy to escalate. Every European is naturally shocked seeing how US police behaves in everyday completely peaceful situations. If something looks like a riot, they will be happy to fight this, they may even provoke riots, and black lives will not matter much.

Who will react or escalate on the other side? Liberal snowflakes? I doubt. I have a simple guess: The blacks. And white lives will not matter much for them too. So, if the situation escalates, you probably end up in a race war. A war with a predictable winner, of white race, and openly fascist. What I reject today as iceaura and Tiassa insulting the political enemy will easily become reality. All you need to obtain real fascism is escalation.

Learn the lessons of the Ukraine Maidan. At the begin it was a peaceful mass demonstration, more or less civilized, pro-European, against police violence (which was faked, but that's irrelevant here). Then it escalated, and the leading figures became fascists. Then they took power, and the escalation continued, up to a civil war, which was, from Ukrainian side, openly fascist, and clearly nationalistic from the other side too.

Think also about how easy it is to escalate today. How much money you need to buy a black criminal gang to make a video where they cut the head of a white boy or girl?

Think also about the cultural background one needs to prevent escalation in mass demonstrations. Lenin has joked about Germans buying platform tickets before taking a train station during a revolution. With some truth. In our own peaceful revolution 1989 the demonstrations started always after the end of the working hours. I have seen the 1. Mai riots in Berlin. The rioting power background here were the Turks, even if there were also a lot of German left anarchists and extremists. But this is once a year, since 1987, and the police has time to prepare, so that they were strong enough, act strongly when necessary, and also became, with time, better in deescalating techniques. Does America have such a culture to prevent escalations?

 

[wellwisher]

Trump rose to power because he was seen as a solution to liberal fascism. PC and all the special interest groups on the left, became fascist bullies, censoring and blaming the white, straight, Christian male for all their problems. This went beyond blame to extortion via guilt. For example, the left allows women's rights, but men's rights would be considered sexist. The left allows gay pride and black lives matter, but straight white pride will be called homophobic and racists. The left fascists use a dual standard that always seems to benefit their own group, at the expense of reflected scapegoats. Nazis had the Jews as their scapegoat. They would blame them for all their woes. Once blamed and extorted, they started to take away liberties and rights based on revisionist history.

The victims of leftist fascism got tired of this and decided to fight back. It began with peaceful demonstrations by groups like the Tea Party. After Tea Party demonstrations the location would be cleaner then when they arrived. It was not all busted up and littered, like with leftist demonstrations. This contrast helped create some vision of balance, but leadership was to shell shocked by years of liberal fascism, so change was slow.

Trump was someone who was very resistant to the leftist fascist infection. Trump is trying to restore balance by getting rid of the leftist scapegoat. The reaction by the left is, any path toward fairness, that involves no scapegoat, seems so harsh. They were never about fairness for all. Their true colors are showing based own how they demonstrate and react during protests.

For example, Trump slowed the rules about transgender bathrooms. Fairness for all means we all need to be in the same boat. Fairness is not the left always getting special considerations, for even a few leftist, at the expense of everyone else.

The leftists are like a virus, that need a host to survive. The white, straight, male Christian no longer wishes to host that virus. The angry and often violent demonstrations on the left are about not allowing the host to escape, since without the host, a virus cannot survive. This has become a source of panic.

 

[joepistole]

Trump rose to power because he was seen as a solution to liberal fascism.

Well at least you didn't say he was God's chosen. But maybe that's coming. Trump rose to power with the assistance of a hostile foreign power and through an antiquated undemocratic vestige of our history as a slave owning state.

PC and all the special interest groups on the left, became fascist bullies, censoring and blaming the white, straight, Christian male for all their problems.

And where is your evidence to support your conclusion? As with everything else with you, it doesn't exist. That's why you can never prove your assertions. Standing up for individual liberty isn't censorship, nor is it bullying. It's just standing up for individual liberty.

This went beyond blame to extortion via guilt. For example, the left allows women's rights, but men's rights would be considered sexist. The left allows gay pride and black lives matter, but straight white pride will be called homophobic and racists. The left fascists use a dual standard that always seems to benefit their own group, at the expense of reflected scapegoats. Nazis had the Jews as their scapegoat. They would blame them for all their woes. Once blamed and extorted, they started to take away liberties and rights based on revisionist history.

And American right wingers scapegoat the American left. The fact is the left isn't extorting anyone. If the American right feels guilty for the things they have done, that not the fault of the left. It's the fault of the right for being guilty.

The left hasn't taken away anyone's liberty. What liberty do you think the left has taken away? Please be specific. The right to discriminate against other groups isn't a protected liberty. There is no right to abuse others. If you and your right wing cohorts were allowed to do what you want to do (i.e. liberties), we would be back in the age of segregation where people of different races were not allowed to commingle. There would be separate restrooms for people of differing races. Mixed races couldn't dine together. They wouldn't be served by the same hospitals. Those days are over no matter how much you and your right wing cohorts lament the loss of those days and those "liberties".

Unfortunately for you and your right wing cohorts the liberty to abuse others isn't a right.

The victims of leftist fascism got tired of this and decided to fight back. It began with peaceful demonstrations by groups like the Tea Party. After Tea Party demonstrations the location would be cleaner then when they arrived. It was not all busted up and littered, like with leftist demonstrations. This contrast helped create some vision of balance, but leadership was to shell shocked by years of liberal fascism, so change was slow.

And this makes sense to you? The "victims of leftist fascism", who are they, and how were they victimized by "left wing fascism"? How is the left fascists? Again, please be specific. The fact is the left isn't fascist. The left embraces the Constitution and the principals inculcated by it.

Trump was someone who was very resistant to the leftist fascist infection. Trump is trying to restore balance by getting rid of the leftist scapegoat. The reaction by the left is, any path toward fairness, that involves no scapegoat, seems so harsh. They were never about fairness for all. Their true colors are showing based own how they demonstrate and react during protests.

Oh my, you have been listening to too much right wing propaganda. Trump is an opportunist who got lucky. Trump got lucky by being born into great wealth, and he got lucky in winning the presidency after losing the popular vote by some 3 million votes.

Since Trump's election there have been hundreds if not thousands of protests around the globe. I'm sure you don't like those protests, but those protests are very real and those protests have been peaceful. Yes the protesters have shown their colors.

Trump is what he has always been and narcissistic opportunist. Trump says and does what ever it takes to get what he wants. He often contradicts himself. He's manipulating a lesser educated vulnerable group whose brains have been softened by years of right wing gray matter tenderizing media consumption. Trump says crazy and untruthful things because it appeals to that group, it's a minority group, but it's easily manipulated. That's why Trump chose them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-schmookler/donald-trump-candid_b_8100988.html

For example, Trump slowed the rules about transgender bathrooms. Fairness for all means we all need to be in the same boat. Fairness is not the left always getting special considerations, for even a few leftist, at the expense of everyone else.

And what exactly did Trump do to do that? Contrary to Trump and much to his chagrin, Trump is learning there is a separation of powers in this country. Trump has no ability to decide or affect this issue. This is a decision for the courts, and the courts have ruled against right wingers like you. Unfortunately for you folks we are not going back to the days of segregation. Live with it.

The leftists are like a virus, that need a host to survive. The white, straight, male Christian no longer wishes to host that virus. The angry and often violent demonstrations on the left are about not allowing the host to escape, since without the host, a virus cannot survive. This has become a source of panic.

LOL...that's just pure unmitigated bullshit. By the way, I'm a white, straight, Christian, male who grew up in the middle of red state America. The left and leftists aren't like a virus, and they don't need hosts. The irony here is you and those like you in your next breath accuse the left of using identity politics, and dividing the country. And you never see the irony and your contradictions. It goes right over your heads in favor of the kind of heated irrational rhetoric you have displayed here.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is what I said. Protests make sense if they have the power to escalate. But who has to be afraid of escalation toward a civil war?

With the current state of play bloody revolution is very likely, whether there is protest or not preceding it.
Too many people are suffering severe injustice, humiliation and despair due to Trumps mindless ambitions.
Importantly it is not just people in the USA that are experiencing these feelings.

A whole lot of international investment in USA stability and moral leadership is going down the toilet and this is very upsetting. Once they realize that their investment is fully lost then you will see a bloody revolution as they seek to restore faith in their own futures. (because they have nothing more to lose)

If a revolution did indeed take place it would attract international support in financial and material terms.

 

[douwd20]

Trump continues to make Crooked Hillary's "email scandal" look like the beginners club. America gets what it deserves.

Everybody is having fun with CNN’s amazing report detailing Donald Trump’s trip to Mar-a-Lago with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. As Trump sat with Abe in the resort’s dining room, the call came in to Trump that North Korea had tested a ballistic missile, and the two men proceeded to have a crisis conference right there in full view of Mar-a-Lago’s rich patrons​

Trump holds court at Mar-a-Lago, and his rich customers get what they paid for
​

 

[iceaura]

1.) Trump does not control the media. Instead, the enemies of Trump control the media.

Uh, no, the enemies of Trump do not control the media. Trump is a Republican, and as such can expect - and has been receiving - considerable support from the corporate controlled media. Meanwhile, the most serious and long-standing enemies of Trump, and the Republican Party generally, are almost completely excluded from American major media.

This is essential if you want to sell your own war as a success. See #729, a classical example of a military action which is, I would guess, in no way different from many others like the Obama drone wars.

Your guess is - again, your custom - uninformed, and unlikely. The Trump screwups involved loss of American lives and major equipment, for starters. See the coverage of Benghazi, for how that plays in the US media when a Democrat is responsible.

2.) It is quite predictable that the US will simply and openly loose a war against Iran. In the same way and for similar reasons they have lost the Vietnam war: Russia will support Iran, but you cannot attack Russia in retaliation because this would lead to the Big Nuclear War.

That's not why the US lost the Vietnam War. That's not the biggest reason the US might lose an open war with Iran where Iraq proved an easy military victory (the terrain, and Iran's superior preparations as well as morale, would probably be more important). And the Vietnam War was sold as a military success to the faction that supports Trump - its collapse was and is blamed on "liberals" and "Democrats".

3.) Where do you want to put the base for the boots on the ground?
- - - -
4.) The main powerful anti-Iranian force in the US is the Israel lobby

The US can set up in Saudi Arabia. The most powerful pro-war with Iran force is the crowd that launched the US into war with Iraq, the PNAC and various allied - their base is in the Republican Party, they have Trump's ear. And don't forget that Trump has not ruled out tactical nukes.

I agree that launching war against Iran makes no sense. Your arguments against such insanity are sound. But so were the similar arguments against the Iraq War - the Republican (Trump) Party is not a sane, reasonable, governing entity.

Who will react or escalate on the other side? Liberal snowflakes? I doubt. I have a simple guess: The blacks. And white lives will not matter much for them too. So, if the situation escalates, you probably end up in a race war.

Your entire vocabulary and frame, and the fantasy of race war you end up at, is a familiar and common line of "thought" one finds among the fringes of the factions and propagandists that put out the Hillaryhate nonsense. What you are describing is the rightwing authoritarian fringe, racial bigots all, view of racial politics in the US. People like Charles Manson and Cliven Bundy buy into this, have for many years now.

Just so you know where you're getting it from.

A war with a predictable winner, of white race, and openly fascist. What I reject today as iceaura and Tiassa insulting the political enemy will easily become reality. All you need to obtain real fascism is escalation.

What you describe as an escalation requiring riots has already happened via elections - "peacefully". We have an open fascist of white race in the White House, and fascistic control of the Party that in turn controls both houses of Congress.

 

[Schmelzer]

Uh, no, the enemies of Trump do not control the media. Trump is a Republican, and as such can expect - and has been receiving - considerable support from the corporate controlled media. Meanwhile, the most serious and long-standing enemies of Trump, and the Republican Party generally, are almost completely excluded from American major media.

Poor Hillary, without any media support she had no chance. Ok, it is plausible that some Republican media support Trump, so that he is not without own media support, different from Germany. But that Trump enemies are not "almost completely excluded from American major media" is so obviously nonsense that I can risk to name this BS even without living in America.

That's not why the US lost the Vietnam War. That's not the biggest reason the US might lose an open war with Iran where Iraq proved an easy military victory (the terrain, and Iran's superior preparations as well as morale, would probably be more important).

This is correct, and was the main point of what the Saker wrote, I have linked it in #722.

But so were the similar arguments against the Iraq War - the Republican (Trump) Party is not a sane, reasonable, governing entity.

As if the Democrats were more sane starting wars in Libya and Syria.

Your entire vocabulary and frame, and the fantasy of race war you end up at, is a familiar and common line of "thought" one finds among the fringes of the factions and propagandists that put out the Hillaryhate nonsense.

In other words, you disagree, and once you use the classical "you are stupid", you have no counter-arguments. Just for information, I did not get that consideration about the possibility of a civil war from anywhere.
And just to clarify: I do not think that there will be a civil war. I was just explaining that a Maidan is not a good idea. I would say with 90% probability it will simply fail - a few big demonstrations, but with time the number of participants decrease, and nobody cares. With some more 8% there will be some serious riots, which will be suppressed by police or national guard or so in a few days. Or weeks. Then 1% is a civil war, and 1% Trump running away like Yanukovich.
Given that Trump is unpredictable, it is also unpredictable how he will behave if a civil war is about to start. That's why I give that possibility 50% of these remaining 2%. But the facts on the ground are, as explained, so that he would have no reason to fear, because a military victory is quite sure.
You should know, I observe the Syrian war in detail, similarly I have looked at some details of other wars, in particular in the Ukraine and Afghanistan. And what I can tell you is that the cultural background and the moral of potential fighters matter a lot. Idea that only the blacks have sufficient hate to start a civil war in the US is my hypothesis, you may disagree. I don't know if the Latinos may participate too against Trump. In this case, the power relation would be different, with a chance to win the civil war.

What you describe as an escalation requiring riots has already happened via elections - "peacefully". We have an open fascist of white race in the White House, and fascistic control of the Party that in turn controls both houses of Congress.

Ok, feel free to start escalation to revert it, via a Maidan in Washington. Try it out, and you will see if there is a difference between now and the regime after a civil war.

 

[iceaura]

Poor Hillary, without any media support she had no chance. Ok, it is plausible that some Republican media support Trump, so that he is not without own media support, different from Germany.

I repeat: the enemies of Trump do not control the US media, as you claimed. The US media is dominated by a few major corporations and some wealthy investors, and they are largely Republican in political leaning - they have had a hard time with the reality of Trump being their Party's nominee, but they have adjusted and will continue to adjust. They want to adjust.

But that Trump enemies are not "almost completely excluded from American major media" is so obviously nonsense that I can risk to name this BS even without living in America.

Here's my actual quote: "Meanwhile, the most serious and long-standing enemies of Trump, and the Republican Party generally, are almost completely excluded from American major media." I'm sorry you find it ludicrous, but it is a simple fact. The left in general, and the libertarian left in particular, have essentially no presence in major US media. And they have been the earliest and most serious critics and advance warning deliverers in the matter of Trump - which explains how it came to be that Trump surprised so many.

As if the Democrats were more sane starting wars in Libya and Syria.

Irrelevant. (And wrong, btw, but you already saw that).
The Republicans are substantially less sane than the Democrats, as the world (not just Iraq) discovered in 2003, and the unstable Trump is loading his administration with the fringe and the psychiatrically dangerous of the Republicans even.

In other words, you disagree, and once you use the classical "you are stupid", you have no counter-arguments. Just for information, I did not get that consideration about the possibility of a civil war from anywhere.

Once again you reject information by reflex, and deceive yourself - your confusion of stupid with ignorant leaving you still ignorant.
That entire description of the US you reason from - "liberal snowflakes" to cartoon racial politics - is a standard rightwing authoritarian construction promulgated by the people I keep reminding you have your number. And you don't even know how it happens - you believe you are reasoning from a world view you came by through your own independent thinking? Ha.

Ok, feel free to start escalation to revert it, via a Maidan in Washington. Try it out, and you will see if there is a difference between now and the regime after a civil war.

I am quite sure a civil war would be very bad in the US - we're still recovering from the last one, in the 1860s. For the country to continue its slide toward totalitarian rule seems more likely. Even the geographic circumstances undermine war (there is no suitable geographic racial split for your race war, for example).

Maybe one way to to look at it is that Trump is a pre-ignition failure, a knock in the engine. The charismatic strongman is supposed to come along at the bottom of a crash, when the defenses are gone, and build his mass movement from the ground up. Instead, Trump "wins" before the US has fallen apart, and takes over a political faction built by others amid a still-functioning political system. So he cannot rule as a strongman - he lacks the base. He has no cadre of loyal generals in the military, built up from his youth over years, for example.

 

[Schmelzer]

The US media is dominated by a few major corporations and some wealthy investors, and they are largely Republican in political leaning - they have had a hard time with the reality of Trump being their Party's nominee, but they have adjusted and will continue to adjust. They want to adjust.

Ok, this sounds already meaningful. That media in favor of Republicans may adjust - that's plausible.

Here's my actual quote: "Meanwhile, the most serious and long-standing enemies of Trump, and the Republican Party generally, are almost completely excluded from American major media." I'm sorry you find it ludicrous, but it is a simple fact.
The left in general, and the libertarian left in particular, have essentially no presence in major US media. And they have been the earliest and most serious critics and advance warning deliverers in the matter of Trump - which explains how it came to be that Trump surprised so many.

Ok, I have ignored these "most serious and long-standing" attributes as irrelevant decoration, but, of course, they allow you such an excuse. But in this case, the claim loses any informative content, because there will be always some radical group sufficiently small to have no media influence which one can name "the most serious and long-standing enemies of Trump".

After another (disposed) "you are stupid"

I am quite sure a civil war would be very bad in the US - we're still recovering from the last one, in the 1860s. For the country to continue its slide toward totalitarian rule seems more likely. Even the geographic circumstances undermine war (there is no suitable geographic racial split for your race war, for example).

Really? The stereotypes about America tell me that many blacks live in predominantly black neighborhoods of big cities. Or is this already from the past? In Europe this type of volitional segregation has been increasing over the last years, despite the fact that politicians do not like this.

Maybe one way to to look at it is that Trump is a pre-ignition failure, a knock in the engine. The charismatic strongman is supposed to come along at the bottom of a crash, when the defenses are gone, and build his mass movement from the ground up. Instead, Trump "wins" before the US has fallen apart, and takes over a political faction built by others amid a still-functioning political system. So he cannot rule as a strongman - he lacks the base. He has no cadre of loyal generals in the military, built up from his youth over years, for example.

Quite plausible. But it does not mean he has no potential for becoming a strongman. If a Maidan in Washington starts, everything may happen.

 

[joepistole]

The ace in the hole that Trump has is a lot of Democrats in Congress and the Senate are up for reelection in 2018. Many of these are from states that Trump won in the general election. The antics of the left, which is delay, disagree and disparage, is not going to help these people get reelected. This will backfire, since the American people voted for change and they wanted the swamp drained. All the hot air from the left is causing the swamp scum to rise to the top of the fake media, where it can be skimmed off. It appears that Trump is keeping them in hot air by throwing them a bone to pick every now and then. Behind the scenes, the foundations of change are in motion. Trump does not broadcast his key moves to the enemy, since that will embolden the enemy. It is better to keep them off guard and/or funnel then where you can pick them off.

That's a hope on your part. It's what right wing entertainers are telling you. But that doesn't make it credible, in fact quite the opposite. Demonstrations against Republicans are occurring all around the country almost on a daily basis. If Trump keeps going down this path he will most certainly lose. How Republicans fare in 2018 depends on what they do between now and then. If the first month is any measure, it doesn't bode well for Republicans.