The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

All the CIA stuff you don't like in Clinton's hands - the coups, the regime changes, etc - has been central to Republican foreign policy. The low level semi-permanent war you don't like is Republican foreign policy.

Of course, it is Republican foreign policy too. The only point which makes a (however small) difference between Republican and Democrat foreign policy is that this is used by Democrats with even higher intensity, as the main foreign policy tool.

This quote reveals a basic confusion:

Given that you quote here something again after I have explicitly already replaced and corrected it shows that it is your intention to lie and misrepresent what I have written.

The new wrinkle with Trump is his willingness to threaten the use of nukes, and his apparently unstable accident prone nature. That was once something you claimed to wish to avoid at all costs - your bottomline deal breaking attribute.

First, there was no such "at all costs". You are correct only as far as contracts with Obama have had a similar problem that the US openly violates them anyway.

It is IMO, intolerable that a man can commit such a fundamental fraud upon an electorate in such a fundamental way and still retain the executive power that the people have entrusted him with.

Commit fraud upon his electorate? That's something new, I would say. Who cares about fraud of deplorables?
The strange fact is that the moment where the fraud of his electorate was at its highest point, namely when he bombed Syria, the American media even hailed him.

 

[iceaura]

Of course, it is Republican foreign policy too. The only point which makes a (however small) difference between Republican and Democrat foreign policy is that this is used by Democrats with even higher intensity, as the main foreign policy tool.

You are wrong in that attempted cover-up of your error as well.

Military violence of all kinds is now more intensively employed by Republican administrations in the US, ever since they captured the appropriate electoral base (initially by Nixon, then solidly consolidated by Reagan in 1980). Trump has of course continued the tradition. That's what they use a share of the Big Military budget for, why they reduce funding and focus on diplomacy and "soft power" initiatives, what the flagwaving is all about, and so forth.

Trump is Republican, and has a Republican Congress to back his expected and already becoming visible military ventures. If he is impeached, as he should be but may not be, his replacement will be a military-focused diplomacy-shirking Republican as well.

Given that you quote here something again after I have explicitly already replaced and corrected it

You just repeated the error, in your most recent post. You have corrected nothing.

First, there was no such "at all costs". You are correct only as far as contracts with Obama have had a similar problem that the US openly violates them anyway.

There were several posts from you in which you claimed that the extra risk of nuclear war supposedly posed by Clinton was sufficient to override all other considerations, and favor Trump. That was ludicrous. Babbling incoherently about Obama has no relevance, and will not help you.

The strange fact is that the moment where the fraud of his electorate was at its highest point, namely when he bombed Syria, the American media even hailed him.

Nothing strange about an American President being praised for bombing something. And that was not fraud, at all - that kind of behavior is what his voters expect, and favor.

And if that is the high point of Trump's bombing career, count yourself very, very lucky.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Commit fraud upon his electorate? That's something new, I would say. Who cares about fraud of deplorables?
The strange fact is that the moment where the fraud of his electorate was at its highest point, namely when he bombed Syria, the American media even hailed him.

I feel you may be missing my point...

The power Trump has is an abstraction, an illusion granted by the people he serves and the constitution he has sworn under oath to defend and protect to the best of his ability. This is to say there is NO actual power in reality and it is only present because the electorate or his support base ( via the constitution) wish it so. (The same applies for any leader I might add)

By demonstrating an inability to honor his most basic of oaths he has demonstrated that he can not be trusted in any way and that his "word" has no intrinsic value. How his White House family can live with this fact is beyond me....Jared Kushner must be deeply and seriously considering his future right now for example.

Sure most will gloss over it and use excuses like "he is new to politics" etc (Ryan) but really ... seriously, given the extreme nature of his oath for such an extreme duty and service, he can not claim naivety as an excuse for uttering "I do" and most importantly nor should any one else, as this is merely politics attempting to cover up a serious fraud.

Similar to "making a pact with the devil", those that do as is the case, will suffer the consequences of allowing deception accordingly.
It is little wonder that at the USA Government is in a constant state of uncertainty and fear, which leads to the potential of serious consequences globally in the form of economic and military wars.

So I suggest that when you are forming an opinion concerning Trump's potentials that you consider the fact that he perjured himself to gain office and everything he has done and said since is tainted with the same perjury.
As to the threat of a hot war...you will just have to ask Trump and maybe be foolish enough to trust what he says.

 

[geordief]

Keeping our spirits up and annoying the clown('s) hangers on.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40177690/the-artist-projecting-on-to-trump-hotel

Of course this is just fake news from the MSM

 

[joepistole]

Congressional Republicans have lashed themselves to Trump's sinking ship. They are making excuses for Trump's behavior.:

1) Trump is ignorant: He didn't know it was wrong to meet privately with the guy who was investigating his administration's collusion with Russians. But he did know it was wrong from Bubba Clinton to stop by Lorretta Lynch's airplane and say hello while her organization was investigating his wife. Yeah, only in "Amerca".

2) In their first meeting, Comey cleared out the room to inform Trump of the salacious material Russia had gathered on him. Therefore, Trump somehow thought that's how all meetings with the FBI director should be conducted: one on one and in private. I guess the meal was a Trump embellishment.

I don't think congressional Republicans will find a backbone unless and until Trump loses the right wing entertainment industry, and that's a big if. Right wing entertainers have been with Trump from the very beginning. I don't see them leaving him no matter what. It's not their style. Evidence and reason mean nothing to that crowd.

 

[douwd20]

Evidence and reason mean nothing to that crowd.

Nothing. Zip. Nada. What does that mean for the country when half of it believes in pure nonsense? Neil deGrasse Tyson always discusses The Intellectual Collapse of Islam and how Baghdad was the intellectual capital of the world for 300 years until the zealots took over and said math was the work of the devil. The future for America isn't good when as you say evidence and reason become meaningless.

 

[Schmelzer]

You are wrong in that attempted cover-up of your error as well.
... You just repeated the error, in your most recent post. You have corrected nothing.

I do not expect that you support my claim in the clarified variant too. Feel free to argue about this, But it is simply elementary incivility to behave like you do, quoting again statements which have been corrected. And, btw, the aim of the modification was not to remove any error (other than of formulation which can be misinterpreted), but to reformulate what I have said in a more clear, easier to understand way, to avoid future misunderstanding (or better intentional misrepresentation?) from your side.

That's what they use a share of the Big Military budget for, why they reduce funding and focus on diplomacy and "soft power" initiatives, what the flagwaving is all about, and so forth.

Yes, the Republicans support mainly the Big Military. The Democrats, instead, support what you name "soft power", financing color revolutions, terrorism, fascism, and whatever can cause insurgencies in other states.

There were several posts from you in which you claimed that the extra risk of nuclear war supposedly posed by Clinton was sufficient to override all other considerations, and favor Trump.

And that remains my point of view. But this is a particular position about Clinton. In principle, Democrats may be less dangerous in this direction. So, if Democrats get rid of Clinton, this would be a point to consider Trump being more dangerous regarding the danger of nuclear war than some new Democratic leader.
Actually, I do not think the nuclear war danger is high. The greatest nuclear war potential was NK, and here Trump has already backed down. Some danger of war with Iran remains,

Nothing strange about an American President being praised for bombing something. And that was not fraud, at all - that kind of behavior is what his voters expect, and favor.

This kind of behavior has frustrated at least some (if not a lot) of his voters, but it was favored by those media who otherwise preferred Clinton. Clinton herself was also very much in favor of it, except that she wanted much more bombing.

 

[iceaura]

I do not expect that you support my claim in the clarified variant too. Feel free to argue about this, But it is simply elementary incivility to behave like you do, quoting again statements which have been corrected.

You repeated your error, without correction.

And, btw, the aim of the modification was not to remove any error (other than of formulation which can be misinterpreted), but to reformulate what I have said in a more clear, easier to understand way, to avoid future misunderstanding (or better intentional misrepresentation?) from your side.

You did not clarify anything - it was already clear, and wrong. It remains clear, and wrong. Like this:

Yes, the Republicans support mainly the Big Military. The Democrats, instead, support what you name "soft power", financing color revolutions, terrorism, fascism, and whatever can cause insurgencies in other states.

You repeat the error yet again, once again clear and wrong.

The modern Republicans more intensively employ all that stuff than the Democrats. All of it - the terrorism, the fascism, everything involving military and paramilitary violence, is more favored and employed by the post-Reagan Republican than by the modern Democrat, on average.

In addition, on top of that, the Republicans more intensively support Big Military. That's extra. It goes along with the terrorism etc - it's not an either/or situation.

And of course, as you know but insist on pretending not to know, that's not what I meant by "soft power". Your attempt to misrepresent my description of the Democratic Party's standard difference in emphasis implies purpose, rather than ignorant confusion, on your part.

And that remains my point of view. But this is a particular position about Clinton.

Yes. A bizarre and very silly position, which you supported by posting crude propaganda videos and similar wingnut media feed.

Actually, I do not think the nuclear war danger is high. The greatest nuclear war potential was NK, and here Trump has already backed down

The real danger is low, as you failed to recognize when posting Hillaryhate bs, but it was and remains much higher with Trump than any other candidate - certainly higher than from Clinton, or anyone else with experience, knowledge, and a stable character. And the danger is probably increasing from NK, not decreasing, currently - here is what Trump is taking in as information, and using to motivate his policies: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...siles-could-kill-millions-within-minutes.html (we know he gets his news from this source).

This kind of behavior has frustrated at least some (if not a lot) of his voters

When he bombed something his popularity rose among the Republican voting base, of course - so did W's when he invaded Iraq. Bombing things is very popular among Trump voters. Essentially none of them were "frustrated".

So as Trump gets deeper into legal trouble, and needs the popularity boost to prevent Congressional defection, the option of bombing something is going to be right at his fingertips - already fully aligned with Republican foreign policy.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So as Trump gets deeper into legal trouble, and needs the popularity boost to prevent Congressional defection, the option of bombing something is going to be right at his fingertips - already fully aligned with Republican foreign policy.

In a nutshell!
Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Schmelzer]

The modern Republicans more intensively employ all that stuff than the Democrats. All of it - the terrorism, the fascism, everything involving military and paramilitary violence, is more favored and employed by the post-Reagan Republican than by the modern Democrat, on average.

Ok, I have understand your opinion. That does not make my opinion, that Democrats do much more color revolutions, terrorist support and similar regime change techniques an error. Except, of course, in your imagination, where every disagreement with you is an error. Don't forget, I have no reason at all to prefer Democrats. They are simply one faction of these US criminals in power.

The real danger is low, as you failed to recognize when posting Hillaryhate bs, but it was and remains much higher with Trump than any other candidate - certainly higher than from Clinton, or anyone else with experience, knowledge, and a stable character.

The danger of a big nuclear war is proportional to the aggressiveness of the policy toward Russia. This is clearly higher for Clinton than for Trump. I think this part is more important. Experience may be useful, but not if it is experience of doing crimes unpunished.

And the danger is probably increasing from NK, not decreasing, currently - here is what Trump is taking in as information, and using to motivate his policies: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...siles-could-kill-millions-within-minutes.html (we know he gets his news from this source).

An article arguing for sanctions against some Chinese firms cooperating with NK from FOX as increasing danger of nuclear war? Seriously?

Essentially none of them were "frustrated".

Those I care about were frustrated.

So as Trump gets deeper into legal trouble, and needs the popularity boost to prevent Congressional defection, the option of bombing something is going to be right at his fingertips - already fully aligned with Republican foreign policy.

And that's why you support all attempts to corner him as much as possible? Once you cannot get your war with Clinton, let's get war in this way?

 

[iceaura]

That does not make my opinion, that Democrats do much more color revolutions, terrorist support and similar regime change techniques an error.

But it is, anyway. There's a historical record since 1980 - go look at it.

Don't forget, I have no reason at all to prefer Democrats.

Of course you don't. You have almost no information at all.

The danger of a big nuclear war is proportional to the aggressiveness of the policy toward Russia.

Nonsense. Putin's not going to start a nuclear war on purpose - what kind of idiot do you think he is? And dealing with a pro, like Clinton, greatly reduces the chances of starting one by accident.

An article arguing for sanctions against some Chinese firms cooperating with NK from FOX as increasing danger of nuclear war? Seriously?

Don't be that stupid when you troll my posting - it doesn't work.

Those I care about were frustrated.

To repeat: Essentially none of the Trump voters in the US were frustrated. They approved. It's what they voted for. If Trump bombs somebody, he'll have full support from his Party and his electoral base.

And that's why you support all attempts to corner him as much as possible?

That's a downside of threatening any bully. But the alternative is having him wreck the place, which would be even worse - just as likely to include bombing, more likely to include war.

There's no good future with Trump - not for the US, not for anybody. A mistake like this cannot be recovered from without pain.

 

[wellwisher]

The Democrats have no power. They have loss hundreds of local political seats, they have loss the executive, judicial and both branches of the house. They are nothing but a paper tiger, that is all smoke and mirrors. They rigged the election against Bernie Sanders. This being exposed made it clear that they were not honest people. They have a history of trying to rig the system, which Trump calls the swamp. They have tried to take out Trump with playbook games, but they have not succeeded. Their base is still loyal, since they have been taught to have no sense of right and wrong, except for PC, and were never taught critical thinking skills, so they can't infer in the field.

For example, former FBI director Comey admitted that Trump was never under any investigation. This information was not only told to Trump on three occasions, but to members of both parties during private sessions of intelligence committees. Yet, the Democrats and sone Republicans pretended they never knew of this information, so they could try to pull a scam that would take out Trump. Scams may appeal to the criminal classes, but it will hurt the Democrat party in the next election cycle. This end may be why Trump seems to goat them on.

The left tends to forget that Trump grew his business in a left wing state; NY, which is a leader in east coast leftist politics. He gave donations to get things done. He knows how Democrats work, think and what makes them tick. If you pay, they will us their scam skills on your behalf. If you do not pay, they will use them against you.

Trump knew he had to expose this dark side of the Democrats party to the American people. From his inauguration speech, Trump said he will not play ball, setting a trap for the left. They went all out and exposed their entire operation. If ti had worked, this could have used this example to intimidate, everyone in the future. But instead, others have learned there is a way to defend. The life blood of the swamp is tax payer money that is skimmed. Trump is drying the swamp and the gators are getting active.

There are too many lawyers in Washington. Lawyers have rig the system by making it too complex. This allows only lawyer to navigate the waters and only lawyer able to skirt the law and steal from the system. Trump is making the lawyer trade nervous since the growth of the trade need more and more laws and regulations. If you simplify the system, you will not need as many lawyers and scams become harder to disguise.

 

[Schmelzer]

There's no good future with Trump - not for the US, not for anybody.

There is none with Trump, there is none with Clinton. The only choice is between two bad futures. Certainly for the US, but probably with negative outcomes for the whole world.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is none with Trump, there is none with Clinton. The only choice is between two bad futures. Certainly for the US, but probably with negative outcomes for the whole world.

What is with the constant harkening to Clinton? She is history... why the fascination with what Clinton would do when she lost the election?

How fixated are you and wellwisher on the Clintons...perhaps you should open a thread just for that because this is about the TRUMP presidency not the Clinton presidency.... is it not?
Or is it about the Clinton presidency with Trump as some sort of proxy?
Last I heard she was taking some leisure walking in the woods... enjoying her self away from the Washington BS.

 

[Quantum Quack]

here just to remind you :
This is ...H I L L A R Y - C L I N T O N


This is D O N A L D - T R U M P



Can you tell the difference?

 

[geordief]

Good News ?

"Cancellation of President Trump's State Visit is welcome, especially after his attack on London's mayor & withdrawal from #ParisClimateDeal."

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn

If a few protests is all it takes to keep him in his box

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-call-britain-visit-protests-article-1.3238506

 

[joepistole]

One of the very scary things about the Trump is his drive to win has no boundaries. He will literally say and do anything to win. He will fight, and he has repeatedly said so. That's very scary. The man has no respect for our democratic institutions. Trump views them as obstacles.

Winning means everything to Trump. The ends justify the means. For centuries has operated under the principal the end doesn't justify the means. That's why the founding fathers created 3 separate coequal branches of government.

Trump will fight and we are about to find out who is stronger Trump or our democratic institutions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To me what is really at stake here is not so much whether Trump is a good leader or not. It is about the public's tolerance of being led by someone displaying extremely poor integrity.

It's a question of why the public is allowing it self to be led by someone who is incapable of acting honestly.

One single "caught ya" lie is all it should take to disqualify a person from this office of POTUS.

Not millions of lies, only one...
After all he is the one with the master key to every ones safe...

 

[iceaura]

The only choice is between two bad futures.

But not equivalently bad. Remember your prior obsession with nuclear war risk? And of course there's the AGW incoming, the cybersecurity problem, and a dozen other internationally critical issues in which Trump lacks interest and expertise.

 

[douwd20]

So President Trump is being sued. No surprise as he uses his position to send business to his family( hi Ivanka and Trump Jr.).

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anticorruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath​