The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just did. Post 1481, I pointed out, where you once again as often before describe how you arrive at the ideas you post here - reasoned from evidence, evaluation of media, etc.
So what? Does this somehow prove that I claim the origin of the ideas I propose? That I don't use right-wing sources in this process? I read them, and, once they appear reasonable and plausible enough for me, I use them.
Re prosperity: Remains your earlier postings, well remembered by me and about to be denied by you, in which you said (in association with news of US economic reversals, in response to claims that Trump would be incompetent, in passing commentary on the influence of big oil on US foreign policy, and so forth) that you favored such injury to US prosperity as making aggression less likely.
Fine. And, is this somehow in contradiction with what I posted? " If some loss of prosperity of the US population would decrease US aggression, then this loss would be positive. If it would lead to an increase of US aggression, it would be negative." You think, the second is more reasonable. Ok, this is an interesting factual question, which can be discussed. It does not change the point that my aim is less US aggression. And in itself in no way connected with the prosperity of the US population.
 
#stupid | #WhatTheyVotedFor


Ladies and gentlemen, your President of the United States:

Perhaps the most hilarious aspect of the Trump rally is its location: Lafayette Square. Lafayette is named for the Marquis de Lafayette, a French general who played a crucial role in helping the American Revolution. Lafayette is a symbol of French sympathy for the United States and its ideals. There is literally no stupider location in the entire world to stage an anti-French American rally.

(Chait↱)

Here is an interesting question of fallacy: Do you think that irony was intentional, or is it unfair to presume the Trump White House smart enough to achieve such outcomes deliberately?
____________________

Notes:

Chait, Jonathan. "Trump Chooses Most Ironic Location in the Entire World for Anti-France Rally". Daily Intelligencer. 5 June 2017 NYMag.com. 5 June 2017. http://nym.ag/2qTbICY
 
Well... I mean, considering:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/05/trump-nato-speech-national-security-team-215227

Trump decided to go off-script once again with his speech to NATO and decided not to affirm Article 5... despite the script, as of that morning, having been agreed on and including said affirmation.

His own advisers don't even know what the idiot is going to say next...

I don't think one can fine any better example of Trump's weakness as a leader. His policies change as frequently as the winds. Trump likes "strong leaders", but he certainly isn't a strong leader. Trump's policies are whatever the last person he talks to says they are, and that obviously creates chaos and troubles for everyone. Apparently, Bannon was the last person to speak with Trump before his NATO speech.

Trump went off script today with his Muslim travel ban. He called it a travel ban which threw his public relations and legal staffs into a tizzy. His PR and legal teams have been telling everyone for months now that Trump's Muslim travel ban really wasn't a travel ban. Oops.

Trump first called it a travel ban, then his staffers and lawyers said it wasn’t a travel ban, and now Trump says it’s a travel ban again.
 
Last edited:
We seriously need to hold an emergency snap-election cycle... everyone gets to put down four or five choices, and whomever has the most votes wins, and starts rebuilding from the ground up. Only way I can think of to really clean house, and even that isn't guaranteed...
 
Trump's rolling out his infrastructure plan this week, but as with most of Trump's "plans" it's not so much of plan as it's a series of ideas. Trump wants to privatize our infrastructure. That means more toll roads. And he wants to privatize air traffic control. These aren't new ideas. These ideas have been floated for decades, but they have never gained traction and I expect the same still applies. It's difficult to see how overworking and underpaying air traffic controllers will enhance public safety as the Trump administration asserts.

Trump's much vaunted infrastructure spending is going nowhere fast. So if people were expecting some serious infrastructure spending, it ain't happening. If Trump wants some serious infrastructure spending he needs to cough up some federal dollars. But here are his problems: a) he has little control over the Republican congress he is suppose to control, b) he still hasn't thought through the details and has no real plans, c) his plans aren't new and aren't popular and have been rejected by previous congresses, d) Trump's already the least popular POTUS since Richard Nixon, he doesn't have much political capital.

Yeah, Trump's infrastructure ideas are dead on arrival. I had hoped beyond hope this would be one of the things Trump might be able to do as both parties want infrastructure spending. But the odds are increasingly bleak. Trump and his merry band of Republicans have a year and a half, maybe less, if he gets impeached, to do something about infrastructure. Then he is looking at a new congress. Trump has already blown half a year and has nothing to show for it but a handful of warmed over unpopular ideas.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sc...nt-spotlights-infrastructure-plans-2017-06-05
 
Last edited:
Fine. And, is this somehow in contradiction with what I posted? " If some loss of prosperity of the US population would decrease US aggression, then this loss would be positive. If it would lead to an increase of US aggression, it would be negative." You think, the second is more reasonable.
That's not one of your several posts in question. You posted that in response to being called out on assuming reduced US prosperity and a weakened US would be less dangerous to you - that entire muddle a part of you justifying your support of Trump.
So what? Does this somehow prove that I claim the origin of the ideas I propose?
No. It means I claim to recognize the origin of the ideas you post as reasonable, plausible, etc: Rightwing authoritarian agitprop, lies and bs and slander, from US sources long familiar to Americans.

The interesting feature is the parallel adoption of such "ideas" by US Republican core voters, and foreigners opposed to US power and influence.
I read them, and, once they appear reasonable and plausible enough for me, I use them.
Exactly.
Here is an interesting question of fallacy: Do you think that irony was intentional
It's only ironical to people Trump has written off in advance. If intentional, the intent was bullying - power demonstrated by transgression and immunity. Sends a message, as they say.
 
It means I claim to recognize the origin of the ideas you post as reasonable, plausible, etc: Rightwing authoritarian agitprop, lies and bs and slander, from US sources long familiar to Americans.
The interesting feature is the parallel adoption of such "ideas" by US Republican core voters, and foreigners opposed to US power and influence.
There are, of course, a lot of such things where enemies agree with each other. Say, about the value of 2+2 being 4.

By the way, I think about switching sides. There is not much reason that Trump will really do something useful in foreign policy, maybe he will even start a war with Iran, but anyway he will continue most of Obama's foreign policy. I have thought that after the Syrian bombing the war against Trump will be over, given his full surrender under the deep state. But not, the Anti-Trumpers continue. And that means that now the Anti-Trumpers are doing the job for the Anti-American propaganda. By telling how evil Trump is, they start to distribute information about the evil done by Americans worldwide. Which is nothing but the same evil as was always done, as by W, as by Obama.

So, what we see now becomes increasingly a real infight among two parts of the American establishment, above almost equally evil. This is no longer the fake infight of the democratic elections show, but seems more serious. So, I wish success to above sides. Let them fight each other, harm each other as much as possible.

The classical strategy would be to support the weaker side. Up to now, this is, yet, Trump. But all what Trump has to do is to survive as the POTUS, this will automatically make him stronger with time. So, may be after some time I will switch my support. :D
 
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336478-trump-still-upset-over-sessions-recusal-report
Trump was furious over Sessions's recusal: report

sessionstrump_021017getty.jpg

© Getty
President Trump was furious over Attorney General Jeff Sessions's decision to recuse himself from the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Trump believes that Sessions's recusal led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee a probe into Russian interference in last year's election, The New York Times reported.

Sessions recused himself from the investigation in March. The former senator did not reveal at his confirmation hearing that he met with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the campaign when asked about meetings with Russian officials.

Trump "unleashed his fury at aides in the Oval Office" the day after Sessions announced his recusal, the Times reported, citing four sources.

The newspaper noted that Trump a day later tweeted his widely debunked claim that former President Barack Obama conducted a wiretap of Trump Tower.

Trump targeted the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a series of tweets early Monday, saying that the department should have submitted his original version of his travel ban, instead of the version currently being battled in court that only applies to six predominantly Muslim countries, down from seven.

Trump signed the current version of the travel ban in March.

Hm... he's mad that the guy that was supposed to shut these investigations down decided to recuse himself... shocking.
 
#NoPuppetNoPuppet | #PresidentStooge


Click because nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Hm... he's mad that the guy that was supposed to shut these investigations down decided to recuse himself... shocking.

At the end of the day, Jeff Sessions is a lawyer; he knew exactly what he had to do, and woe unto the lawyer who gets caught dabbling in this forbidden realm.

President Trump sometimes seems to not give a damn about this; he's a spoiled bullybrat who wants what he wants and wants it right goddamn mofo grabbembydahoohah now.

Attorney General Sessions, being an attorney, is presently considering how he got himself into this mess, what he overlooked in his zeal to ascend the ivory tower, and how the hell he might keep himself out of prison.

My fellow Americans, it is my honor to present President Nopuppet N. Stooge.

Donald Trump likely has no idea how much trouble he is in. And, you know, given the amount of chatter about the #PutiPoodle's mental health, we might as well take the moment to consider the possibility that he actually lacks the capability of comprehending just how much trouble he is in.

I've lost track of an article, one of many amid a torrential, toxic tide, in which one or another Democratic-sympathizing analyst or commentator pointed out that the President is more and more isolated as time passes, and the potential loss of Jared Kushner as Russia-scandal questions verge toward treason would leave Mr. Trump with Bannon and McMaster, neither of whom, apparently, he trusts. There are, of course, all manner of caveat and context about that, but the point is easy enough to grasp generally, and reminds that even the devoted son-in-law has his own foci to worry about.

President Trump is not getting his way about a number of these issues because reality itself requires otherwise. And I do wonder, as he gets more and more frustrated with each new disappointment, what question he is asking himself: What did he miss? What did who not tell him? It would be interesting to know, not simply for observing that he likely would blame others, but more particularly the laundry list of what people did not tell him: What did Donald Trump not know about what the hell he was getting into?

Part of what staggers me is an old conservative pretense that whatever strange thing a right-winger says is just as normal as nuts in a tavern, and the degree to which the Trump administration seems to be trying to play the game. It's not necessarily in McMaster's lexical dances for the press, or the #CommShop's hideously awful, worm-on-hook messaging; rather, as more and more of this emerges, there are moments in which they basically seem to be confessing or even pantomiming their guilt, and it feels really stupid to say, but on some level, inasmuch as anyone would admit to their boss that he and they were taking certain risks, Donald Trump and others in his administration, transition, and campaign behave as if they think they simply cannot get caught.

But let me be specific: Neither do I think they are palm-rubbing, gleeful villains recounting their exploits for their own satisfaction. It's more like they are accustomed to getting what they want, so, sure, here is the exposure, and here is our response, and, you see, all is good because we say so, or something like that.

It's like at some point Donald Trump is going to say, "Well, yes, of course we did—why wouldn't we?" and the rest of us are going to take more than a moment trying to figure out if he has any clue what he just said. And, you know, maybe if it's 1980, and a white supremacist sits in the principal's office, maybe a white kid can beat a minority and say of course he did it because [racist slur] and the principal will tell the minority to try harder to fit in. I mean, that's the thing, I recognize this behavior. But come on, it's 2017, and this is a Manhattan real estate developer turned President of the United States, not some two-bit, backwater white supremacist elementary school principal in a time and place where he could be seen physically bullying your own students in pursuit of a Little League baseball dispute and nobody think it strange.

Still, it's the behavior of someone who doesn't expect to ever have reason to answer under the rules. Is that some manner of cosmic hubris, then, or have they broken and this sense of denial is all they have left?

And while the latter is a tempting excuse, how would that reconcile with the idea of a lawyer like Attorney General Sessions getting himself into this mess in the first place? The former U.S. Senator and Alabama Attorney General is rather quite accustomed, politically speaking, to getting his way.
 
There are, of course, a lot of such things where enemies agree with each other. Say, about the value of 2+2 being 4.
And they reveal nothing - agreement on matters of reality can be independent. Agreement on AGW, for example, is possible across the entire ideological spectrum. Exxon, under the current Secretary of State when he was CEO, had an entire research wing arriving at essentially the same view of AGW as Michael Moore's - and the corporation acted accordingly: the corporate and political efforts we see in the high Arctic were planned years ago.

But agreement on particular lies and falsehoods and denials of reality - right down to typographical oddities and nicknames - is not independent. There is no common reality of lies, falsehoods, and fictions, for all to draw from independently. It reveals lineage.

In your case, it reveals that you are completely and uncritically gullible when presented with the marketing efforts of American fascism, and have received your entire view of American politics (and a good share of reality itself) as delivered by their crudest minions - you can't tell that shit from shinola, as the Americans who were around when this movement last got rolling would put it.
So, what we see now becomes increasingly a real infight among two parts of the American establishment, above almost equally evil. This is no longer the fake infight of the democratic elections show, but seems more serious. So, I wish success to above sides. Let them fight each other, harm each other as much as possible.
And all that stuff about avoiding nuclear war at all costs - never mind now, it's no longer operative?
And so you re-emphasize my observation: the Republican core voter and the enemy foreigner who wishes ill upon the US support Trump alike. They are joined together in a common cause.
 
I'm highly skeptical of such pop psychology

Not so sure I would call it "pop". More than 18,000 psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professional posted a petition on Facebook declaring that Donald Trump must be removed from office because he has “a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States,” which is quite unprecedented.

I'm old enough to remember Reagan and he was an older president as well. I recall many times when people around him had to rather frequently have to "clean up" and massage some of his statements only years later to learn he had alzheimers. I am 99% sure he is 100% pre-dementia. It doesn't help at all Trump's doctor sees no problem in covering it up.


Trump is just used to living in his own world.

Like dementia sufferers do.
 
I fail to understand why the USA is so willing to risk everything just for one man of questionable mental health.
He doesn't need to be diagnosed to demonstrate how much of a risk he is. His behavior says it all.
The stakes can be no higher, yet serious risk taking the USA (so to the world) is.
Trump is just a man... just a man and no more than a man...and from what he has displayed a man that is not very well.

"It is when he inexplicably stops tweeting that it is time to really worry!"
 
Last edited:
I do hope the USA Gov. has a strategy in place if Comey's testimony proves overwhelming for Trump's self restraint.
 
But agreement on particular lies and falsehoods and denials of reality - right down to typographical oddities and nicknames - is not independent.
Who has made any claims about independence? I have never said that I have never read right-wing sources. And, as a non-native, I take over any typographical oddities, no problem. If I think a nickname hits the target, the same.
Nice try to shift the issue, to make it look like I even try to deny that I have read your evil sources and taken information from them. I would not even hesitate to take information from joepistole, if he would, by accident, provide some.
And all that stuff about avoiding nuclear war at all costs - never mind now, it's no longer operative? And so you re-emphasize my observation: the Republican core voter and the enemy foreigner who wishes ill upon the US support Trump alike. They are joined together in a common cause.
No, it is operative yet. That's why I'm actually not yet changing sides. But I would, if the Anti-Trumpers would present a replacement which is plausibly less dangerous for world peace than Trump.

Actually, Trump does not look extremely dangerous in this regard. The Syrian attack was less serious than what Clinton claimed she would have done in this situation, the NK threats were bluff, and were called by Kim. That he would bluff a lot was expected by everybody, and everybody expects that nobody will be bluffed. (The Iran certainly not.)

And, no, there is no common cause. My main cause is world peace, which is heavily endangered by the US, even with Trump. Weakening the US would be a means, not a cause, to improve my cause. I don't see a big role of world peace among the Trump voters. Except for a few libertarians among them. All one can say is they were not abhorred by his open proposal to end the new Cold War with Russia. Which is one of the main points which unifies the Anti-Trumpers: Cold War with Russia. I have to add my sympathy for their strong anti-PC attitudes.

BTW, interesting question, what do you think about the Qatar issue? Looks like Trump is somehow behind this. There is a lot of speculation about the real cause of the conflict. But, whatever, the outcome up to now is positive: Qatar, which is known as one of the main supporters of terrorism in the region, and in particular the main supporter of Muslim brotherhood, is weakened, and is openly called, even by the other supporters of terrorists like Saudi Arabia, a supporter of terrorism. Another split in the Saudi war coalition against Yemen.

Of course, not much more can be expected, probably Qatar will submit to whatever was really the issue - but that there were questions where Qatar felt strong enough not to submit immediately is already interesting too.
 
BTW, interesting question, what do you think about the Qatar issue? Looks like Trump is somehow behind this. There is a lot of speculation about the real cause of the conflict. But, whatever, the outcome up to now is positive: Qatar, which is known as one of the main supporters of terrorism in the region, and in particular the main supporter of Muslim brotherhood, is weakened, and is openly called, even by the other supporters of terrorists like Saudi Arabia, a supporter of terrorism. Another split in the Saudi war coalition against Yemen.

Of course, not much more can be expected, probably Qatar will submit to whatever was really the issue - but that there were questions where Qatar felt strong enough not to submit immediately is already interesting too.
Interesting indeed given that the USA has over 11,000 USA Military personnel (Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base).
The whole thing makes little sense at the moment but something really big must have come up either before the big meeting or immediately after...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top