The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

LOL, YMMD.

So you contend you are not frightened - but then one of my explanations of your flinch behavior (such as the meaningless chaff you throw at the observation of your AGW denial) is made more likely.

You are clearly not posting at random, but with consistency and agenda. There is, therefore, an explanation, and it has to account for your repeated and insistent failure to acknowledge physical reality and event in your posting - the willfulness of the ignorance you maintain in the face of objection and remonstrance and provided information.

In this thread: Trump, his campaign, and the Trump presidency, has been and is simply not as you insist must be. For example:

you have to live with the fact that I see the blame on the other, the US side, and neither at Obama or Trump, but some forces which have not been elected, but are strongly opposed to good relations with Russia. And these non-elected but powerful force, which has acted as under Democrat as under Republican presidency, are what I name deep state.

And I see these forces being interested in regime change in all secular Arabic states, replacing them with islamist states, jihadi terror and chaos. And they have done this as under Republican, as under Democratic presidency.

That was you
1) changing the subject from having been cornered posting nonsense about the much more violent and much stronger Republican regime change operations, such as those associated with the Iraq War, being bipartisan - as is required by your deep state presumption;
2) ascribing Trump's perfectly consistent behavior in the Middle East (an intensification of the drone strikes and other violence both clandestine and openly military, as is Republican de facto policy) and toward Russia (his business dealings come first, the interests of the US corporate class second, the interests of any victims of Russian or US behavior a distant third) to the influence of the "deep state", on the grounds that they conflict with what you take (seriously) as the content of Trump's campaign rhetoric

Along the way, you overlook the circumstance that the regimes the US has been working to overthrow (led by Republican efforts, as usual these days) in Iran and Afghanistan were and are not secular, while Israel is (and Jordan, Lebanon) and Egypt was. Secularity does not seem to be the key feature.

And won't be, with Trump.

 

[Schmelzer]

So you contend you are not frightened - but then one of my explanations of your flinch behavior (such as the meaningless chaff you throw at the observation of your AGW denial) is made more likely.
You are clearly not posting at random, but with consistency and agenda. There is, therefore, an explanation, and it has to account for your repeated and insistent failure to acknowledge physical reality and event in your posting - the willfulness of the ignorance you maintain in the face of objection and remonstrance and provided information.

In the denial thread, I had, indeed, an evil "agenda": To provoke you to show all the characteristics of a totalitarian Party soldier. This aim was successfully reached. AGW was ideal for this purpose, because I accept AGW as such (I have no doubt that there is a warming, and that human-made CO2 made some contribution to it). For some reason I don't understand you somehow classified me as an AGW denier. So, an ideal opportunity to force you to present the criteria you use to distinguish evil deniers.

I find it also interesting that all of your camp - joepistole, Tiassa, Kittamaru - focus almost completely on personal attacks, instead of arguments about the content. (Quantum Quack is a nice exception here, he sometimes argues about the content.)

And I see these forces being interested in regime change in all secular Arabic states, replacing them with islamist states, jihadi terror and chaos. And they have done this as under Republican, as under Democratic presidency.

Along the way, you overlook the circumstance that the regimes the US has been working to overthrow (led by Republican efforts, as usual these days) in Iran and Afghanistan were and are not secular, while Israel is (and Jordan, Lebanon) and Egypt was. Secularity does not seem to be the key feature.

Learn to read. Or some geography to understand that Iran and Afghanistan are not Arab countries, and Israel, even if there is some Arab population, is a Jewish state (and that this is a quite important point for Jews as well as Arabs). Then, don't forget that there are actually the same US-paid terrorists fighting in Lebanon too (only recently the Syrian army was able to take control of the whole Syria/Lebanon border, while on the other side of the border there are yet terrorist-controlled parts). And that there was an US-supported Arab spring revolution against the secular Arab regime of Mubarak in Egypt.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack is a nice exception here, he sometimes argues about the content.

The problem is Schmelzer, there is very little content to actually argue about. All arguable points end up in circles going no where..

It is the nature of "certain mental states"that prevents any conclusive moments in dialogue.
Making it impossible and incredibly frustrating to entertain productive discussion.

"My God... there is bedlam in Bedlam!"

I strongly suggest that if you wish to improve your credible influence that you start to use bullet points.

1. They allow other's to read clearly what you have to say.
2. they allow careful dissection and counter discussion
3. they remove vagueness.
4. they make it more difficult for the author (you) to escape his own conclusions and claim all manner of slippery excuses for sloppy thinking.

The last point '(4) is the most important...

Learning to shut your own door so you cant escape your own shadow so to speak is very important. (self accountability)

related to Trump:
Trump, has due to his own mental state, got the whole of the USA government and most of the worlds leadership running around in circles, achieving stuff all (very little) at a time when the USA and the world needs the best leadership.

This is truly the insidious nature of insanity.

I don't play that game once I realize that that is the game being played.

Example:
What do you think is currently happening between Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

( Me: a Trump induced bout of insanity caused by the "innocent" poison that Trumps self deluded mouth spews)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer,
Have you ever read "One flew over the cuckoos nest" - Ken Kersey (1962) ?

If so, in your opinion, why was the star of the ward Randle McMurphy committed to a psychiatric institution? ( rhetorical)

Or " Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance" - Pirsig (1974)

 

[joepistole]

The problem is Schmelzer, there is very little content to actually argue about. All arguable points end up in circles going no where..

It is the nature of "certain mental states"that prevents any conclusive moments in dialogue.
Making it impossible and incredibly frustrating to entertain productive discussion.

"My God... there is bedlam in Bedlam!"

I strongly suggest that if you wish to improve your credible influence that you start to use bullet points.

1. They allow other's to read clearly what you have to say.
2. they allow careful dissection and counter discussion
3. they remove vagueness.
4. they make it more difficult for the author (you) to escape his own conclusions and claim all manner of slippery excuses for sloppy thinking.

The last point '(4) is the most important...

Learning to shut your own door so you cant escape your own shadow so to speak is very important. (self accountability)

related to Trump:
Trump, has due to his own mental state, got the whole of the USA government and most of the worlds leadership running around in circles, achieving stuff all (very little) at a time when the USA and the world needs the best leadership.

This is truly the insidious nature of insanity.

I don't play that game once I realize that that is the game being played.

Example:
What do you think is currently happening between Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

( Me: a Trump induced bout of insanity caused by the "innocent" poison that Trumps self deluded mouth spews)

I don't think Comrade Schmelzer is interested in an honest discussion. I honestly think Comrade Schmelzer is one of Putin's many paid web warriors. He can never say anything bad about Putin even though Putin is the antithesis of what Comrade Schmelzer preaches on the web.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't think Comrade Schmelzer is interested in an honest discussion. I honestly think Comrade Schmelzer is one of Putin's many paid web warriors. He can never say anything bad about Putin even though Putin is the antithesis of what Comrade Schmelzer preaches on the web.

If he is he is not a very good one... IMO
It seems Putin's money could be better spent...
Personally I don't think he is, he has some very valid points*** that I believe are getting lost for many reasons... one of which is the lack of definitive statements, another the failure to check his own rhetoric properly and also the language interpretation issue.

** don't ask me what they are please!!!

 

[Tiassa]

... that I believe are getting lost for many reasons... one of which is the lack of definitive statements, another the failure to check his own rhetoric properly and also the language interpretation issue.

Part of it is simply the volume of irrelevancy, which is the only consistent effect of his posting.

 

[iceaura]

AGW was ideal for this purpose, because I accept AGW as such (I have no doubt that there is a warming, and that human-made CO2 made some contribution to it). For some reason I don't understand you somehow classified me as an AGW denier.

To repeat, in the face of your continual and inexcusable repetition of that bs once again:

As everyone knows, AGW is not merely "some warming" that humans made "some contribution" to. AGW is the ongoing, large, rapid, unprecedented, and significantly consequential trapping of thermal energy in the biosphere almost entirely caused by the human contribution to the greenhouse gas concentration in the planet's atmosphere, together with its established probabilities and timelines of specific effects, and in turn their consequences (good and bad).

Along the way, other effects of the human boosting of the main gas involved - CO2 - are catalogued and tracked, and the probabilities of various consequences (good and bad) estimated honestly and in good faith by competent and professional researchers.

That, you denied. You "doubted" established physical fact, in all the standard ways promulgated by the (so tired of typing this out instead of the standard terminology) "corporate authoritarian rightwing media agencies and operations" in the US - i.e the well-known US fascist propaganda outfits, whose output you accept uncritically as legitimate and repost on this forum as your thinking.

Three examples: You asserted the legitimacy of doubt over all human influence beyond the "logarithmic" - i.e. small - contribution of some of the CO2 boost. You claimed that the extreme predominance in the media of negative and alarming reports of the most probable bad consequences was evidence of the nature and direction of political pressure on the research efforts, such as threats to funding and professional status, and the scientific reports could be discounted accordingly. You claimed specifically that from such reasoning you could determine that the following benefits of AGW were under-researched and under-reported by the scientific establishment involved: the spread of beneficial organisms and their benefits; the benefits of a generally warmer climate with more rain on human life.

That is standard, routine, AGW denial in the US. You deny AGW. Period.

I find it also interesting that all of your camp - joepistole, Tiassa, Kittamaru - focus almost completely on personal attacks, instead of arguments about the content.

More dishonest bs, starting with the personal attack of assigning me to a "camp" (a routine of yours, attempting pejorative association is a standard schmelzer tactic), ending with the standard Fox tactic of a pre-emptive accusation - it is your target, not you, who is making all these "personal attacks"? After all your prattling about totalitarian soldiers and Party lines and so forth? Silly boy.

Look at this, say:

Learn to read. Or some geography to understand that Iran and Afghanistan are not Arab countries, and Israel, even if there is some Arab population, is a Jewish state (and that this is a quite important point for Jews as well as Arabs).

The question was secularity, and your deceptive claim of US undermining of it. Your response there was 1) a short personal attack and 2) careful avoidance of the question, deflection into irrelevance. The "content" was secularity, not Arabic or Jewish status, and your deceptive error in making your claim about it, jihad, chaos, and the US deep state. You avoided that content.

You routinely and habitually, as there, avoid and alter content in your responses. You make personal attacks and claims routinely, in your responses (your guesswork about me has been entertaining, but not accurate in the least - if you even care about accuracy in such tactics), but the purpose seems to be avoiding content.

And the interesting pattern is that you do all this as a foreigner in near-perfect alignment - vocabulary, issues, "content" deflections, namecalling, all of it - with the domestic media efforts of US fascism. Now a defense of the Trump presidency? I'm honestly curious as to how that happens. It has gone far beyond chance.

Granted the defense recently consists of changing the subject - and this post of mine cooperates too readily with that strategy - but still: Trump has quite a bit of support in Europe, among people one would expect to be wary of what informed Americans know him to be. How is that happening? Has the domestic US fascist propaganda had that much influence abroad? We all know US media has been remarkably influential since WWI - is this more of that?

 

[iceaura]

Personally I don't think he is, he has some very valid points*** that I believe are getting lost for many reasons

That is a standard feature of bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Frankfurt

https://newrepublic.com/article/124803/donald-trump-not-liar

Yet the increasingly frequent tendency of Trump’s critics to label him a liar is wrongheaded. Trump is something worse than a liar. He is a bullshit artist. In his 2005 book On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt, emeritus philosophy professor at Princeton University, makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting—one that is extremely useful for understanding the pernicious impact that Trump has on public life. Frankfurt’s key observation is that the liar, even as he or she might spread untruth, inhabits a universe where the distinction between truth and falsehood still matters. The bullshitter, by contrast, does not care what is true or not. By his or her bluffing, dissimulation, and general dishonesty, the bullshit artist works to erase the very possibility of knowing the truth. For this reason, bullshit is more dangerous than lies, since it erodes even the possibility of truth existing and being found.

 

[Schmelzer]

Part of it is simply the volume of irrelevancy, which is the only consistent effect of his posting.

I have, indeed, an unfortunate tendency to answer even nonsensical accusations. The result is, indeed, that the answer is as irrelevant as the attack. I will try to ignore such attacks, maybe this helps.
PS: As a first try, I will not reply to iceaura's AGW denial repetition and other sufficiently irrelevant attacks. (If I write "secular Arabic" I mean "secular Arabic", and therefore the context is "secular Arabic" and not "secular".)

He can never say anything bad about Putin even though Putin is the antithesis of what Comrade Schmelzer preaches on the web.

This is simply out of principle. I fight for the other side, for the multipolar world. And, whenever I think Putin is doing something wrong, I may discuss this in a Russian forum, but not here.

Learning to shut your own door so you cant escape your own shadow so to speak is very important. (self accountability)

If we talk about Trump, all what can be done is vague speculation. I have no problem with accountability - I always ask iceaura to back all these attacks with quotes.

What do you think is currently happening between Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Good question, and a difficult one. If you like points, ok, I will try:
1. The conflict is not new. There has been something similar in the past too. It is well-known that above jihadi support terrorism, but different variants. Qatar pays for Muslim brotherhood. Saudi Arabia for Al Qaida and Daesh. In this sense, Qatar supports more moderate terrorists. But not only, Qatar pays also for a lot of the Syrian islamist terrorists which are not moderate at all.
2. The most important case where the conflict had an important result was the second round of the Egyptian revolution. The winner of the first round, Mursi, was Muslim brotherhood, paid by Qatar. Sisi was initially paid by Saudis, which paid afaiu also for the coup itself. So, Trump is innocent about the conflict itself. But he plays, despite this, a big role.
3. The globalists use above as tools, and are therefore interested to force them to be friends, even if they hate each other.
4. Trump could not care less about the globalist's interests. He cares about America first. That means, he does not care about long term interests of the empire, but about making money out of the existing power of the US. And this is what he is doing quite successfully.
5. So, it seems that he has, at first, allowed the Saudis to do what they like, in exchange for a big arms deal.
6. Then there was some pressure on Qatar (those claims about Trump "negotiating"). The reaction of Qatar was also a big arms deal for the US. So, Trump is satisfied and now neutral about this. That's a family thing of these Arabs, why should he care. Above have paid what he cares about and can now fight each other if they like.
7. The conflict is quite harmful for the deep state interest. Turkey (Erdogan is Muslim brotherhood) supports Qatar, but the Saudi support for Al Qaida in Idlib goes through Turkey. Bad luck for Al Qaida.
8. Another key factor which complicates everything is the end of the power fight between Mohammed bin Nayef and Mohammed bin Salman. Now bin Salman is the Crown Prince, and bin Nayef is the loser. Here, Trump may have played a decisive role. Salman has some connections with Trump, while Nayef was favored by Obama.
9. Salman is certainly a dangerous type, can easily start a war. So, the conflict with Qatar may be simply related with Salman getting the power.
10. He is also open to cooperate with Russia and China. So, Russian commentators seem happy about Salman winning the fight.
11. Sisi is certainly also happy, the relations of SA with Egypt may improve, they have been seriously damaged last year. Israel is happy too, there may be an open alliance SA with Israel (that they are
So this is what I have found out about all this up to now. My guess is that there will not be an open war, but that the conflict will not disappear into nothing but lead to serious changes. A potential winner is Iran, which appears now in a sort of alliance with two Sunni states, Turkey and Qatar, against SA.

 

[iceaura]

I have, indeed, an unfortunate tendency to answer even nonsensical accusations

No, you don't. You deflect, and introduce irrelevancies and changes of subject instead.

(If I write "secular Arabic" I mean "secular Arabic", and therefore the context is "secular Arabic" and not "secular"

And my response was to point to the misleading use of "secular". It looks like a cover for "Russian allied".

But let's assume you didn't do that on purpose. In that case
(since the content you were dealing with was a comparison of Trump's use of CIA and related violence in the Middle East as a continuation of Republican Party policy and derived relations with Russia, vs the "deep state" relations with Russia and the Middle East which you claim Trump opposes),
the "Arab" part, restricting the context to exclude such countries as Afghanistan and Lebanon and Iran and Israel, is your deflection.

In neither case did you address the content.

This is simply out of principle. I fight for the other side, for the multipolar world.

You post almost entirely the media feeds of American corporate imperialism, US rightwing authoritarian unipolar hegemony propaganda, on this forum. The only matters in which your posts diverge from that propaganda source is in your descriptions of certain physical realities of war and demography in Eastern Europe, where you seem to have personal knowledge.

Which is how you come to post this confusion:

4. Trump could not care less about the globalist's interests. He cares about America first. That means, he does not care about long term interests of the empire, but about making money out of the existing power of the US

Trump is a globalist - a member of the corporate wing, the financial interests and powers behind the imperial agenda. His interests and the political globalists's interests are conjoined - two aspects of one agenda. When Trump sets out to make money out of existing US power, he will employ existing US military power along with the rest - by preference, actually, because it is his (the US's) big advantage.

That is standard modern Republican policy, Trump is Republican, and we see Trump defunding the State Department and reneging on treaties and so forth while budgeting lots of extra money for the military.

 

[Schmelzer]

And my response was to point to the misleading use of "secular". It looks like a cover for "Russian allied".

Why I should care about your fantasies?

But maybe I should care, this particular example possibly explains some of the communication problems here.

the content you were dealing with was a comparison of Trump's use of CIA

No. I have not made any claims about Trumps use of CIA, given that I'm not sure if Trump controls the CIA.

the "Arab" part, restricting the context to exclude such countries as Afghanistan and Lebanon and Iran and Israel, is your deflection.

It is not a deflection at all, because omitting it would make my original claim wrong, that's why it is a necessary and important part of my claim.

Sorry, but I'm a mathematician by education, and a scientist. It is part of this background that I care about minor points which you may think about as irrelevant. And so your rough interpretations of how you interpret what I think (instead of quoting me) are always inaccurate, so that I feel a necessity to correct them. Maybe I'm wrong and these are not really distortions and intentional lies. But you really think in such a sloppy way that you think your interpretations are accurate. And then, as a result, my corrections look like deflections and irrelevancies. They are not. They are important enough to force me to correct them, because I would not say what you present as my ideas.

(BTW, I already know that you think Trump is a globalist, but Quantum Quack has asked me what I think about this, not what you think about this.)

 

[joepistole]

This is simply out of principle. I fight for the other side, for the multipolar world. And, whenever I think Putin is doing something wrong, I may discuss this in a Russian forum, but not here.

Yes, it is out of principal, your paycheck. You have been repeatedly challenged to say something bad about Putin and you have been unable to do so, here or anywhere. Your multi-polar world excuse is just your most recent excuse. The fact is you have done much more than just not criticize Putin. You have always defended him no matter what.

 

[iceaura]

Why I should care about your fantasies?

But maybe I should care, this particular example possibly explains some of the communication problems here.

Nobody's asking you to care, and you have given no indication of the capability (be interesting to see you try). We're just dealing with your bullshit as it shows up on the screen.
For example: The fact that you attempted to deflect the discussion away from Republican agendas and Trump's Russian relations to innuendo about deep state "secular Arabic" irrelevancy is not a fantasy, but a visible feature of your posting. You obviously don't care that it's visible. So?

No. I have not made any claims about Trumps use of CIA, given that I'm not sure if Trump controls the CIA.

Yes, you have - you have claimed Trump's policies and agenda run contrary to the intelligence agencies that favored Clinton (and the deep state). They are supposed to have influenced him to act in opposition to his campaign proposals, remember? You posted that. I even gave you a reference to a thorough lefty analysis of exactly that matter - the conflict between Trump and the US intelligence agencies - that supported much of your take. (Harper's magazine article).

It is not a deflection at all, because omitting it would make my original claim wrong, that's why it is a necessary and important part of my claim.

So? Your claim was a deflection, and the implications of it a deception as well as an avoidance of the content, whether it's "right" or not (its implications are wrong, but you may not have intended them).
Btw: I, like most Americans of my faction, am solidly opposed to the US military and black ops removal of secular and stable regimes in the Middle East with chaos and jihad waiting to replace them - just as we were opposed to the removal of the often democratic and soundly governing regimes they replaced, last generation, which got us into this mess. But we don't need a "deep state" to explain such folly and evil - the State itself, in the hands of the appropriate factions and acting on the Party agenda, is sufficient and indicated. The bogeymen are not hidden from us and inexplicably influential - they are known and official actors. For forty years now, they've been mostly Republicans. Trump continues this - that's one reason we so opposed his election.

And then, as a result, my corrections look like deflections and irrelevancies. They are not

You don't post corrections. You sometimes post denials, as in your denial of your blatant AGW denial, but those are not correct. You do change the subject, and avoid the content of my posts, as a rule.

Sorry, but I'm a mathematician by education, and a scientist. It is part of this background that I care about minor points which you may think about as irrelevant

That is common among the gullible suckers of American propaganda and media deceptions, in these internet political discussions. Of all the intellectual trades, math guys seem most likely to overlook the scope and influence of ignorance in reality based matters, and least likely to recognize when they are making crude and easily mocked errors in reasoning - visible to their intellectual inferiors - simply because they lack information.

This lack of information - the "low information voter", the dominance of the news media by quarreling opinion models of presentation, etc - is a central issue in Trump's presidency. He depends on it for political support and political power.

 

[joepistole]

Trump has broken 80 campaign promises in 100 days. I think that has got to be some sort of record. He promised not to touch Medicaid. He has. He promised better and less expensive healthcare. As evidenced by Trumpcare, he has broken those promises. But the funny thing is his followers remain oblivious.

https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trumps-100-days-of-broken-promises-a4c116bbb2b4

 

[Quantum Quack]

No. I have not made any claims about Trumps use of CIA, given that I'm not sure if Trump controls the CIA.

Separation of powers:

This statement may indicate a fundamental issue with your understanding of the difference between the USA system of management and that employed in Russia under Putin. It may also enlighten you as to one of the reasons why the USA has been so successful.
You have qualified your statement about the CIA with:
"I'm not sure if Trump controls the CIA"

There are many things wrong with the implications you are innocuously insinuating with this statement.

1. The President does not control the CIA.
2. Maintaining the CIA's (Judiciary) independence is one of the things a healthy President has sworn to protect and encourage.
3. Putin controls the KGB(?)
4. Independence of the Judiciary is not possible in Russia (?)

Do you see how the above misunderstanding can destroy your credibility when discussing the power arrangements in managing the USA?
I am confident that Putin knows the distinction and how important that distinction is.

A fundamental key to USA success has always been the integrity of the "separation of powers" and in fact it is the same for any democratic system that prioritizes serving the people as it's highest agenda.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Good question, and a difficult one. If you like points, ok, I will try:

I do not wish to totally derail Joe's thread on Trump so I shall maintain focus.
But quite a list and one worthy of discussion...
I shall consider starting a thread using your bullet points as a discussion starter.

Relative to Trump:

My take:

Do we accept that Trump's low self esteem leads him to beg for the admiration and favor of others?

• Trump's demonstrated Severe Narcissism is due to basically a very low sense of self worth due probably to the fact that he has "paid" his way through life rather than living it. Acquiring skills by buying them is impossible.
• Critical thinking, reading, writing skills can't be bought they can only be got by hard work.
  
• Trump participates in an unprecedented meeting of many ME States.
• Trump, in a fit of narcissistic impulsiveness, seeks to grand stand by informing the Saudi King of certain BS intelligence that supports the conspiracy theories about Qatar's intentions towards the Saudis.
• Trump is an expert at poisoning relationships ( see latest statements about the special prosecutor)
  
• The meeting ends with Trump looking good, having secured a massive arms deal and having promoted the anti radical extremist message.
• Shortly afterwards the blockade upon Qatar has begun with out any sound rational. Other than conspiracy theory and some dubious intelligence provided by Trump.
• Trump has successfully divided the Arab world as he does every where else.
• Remember the distinction between Government, family and religion is very vague in these parts of the world.(Patriarchal Tribalism 101)
• ( the government can deny and state it has no control over family members.)

But:

• Trump failed to realize the consequences of his impulsive quest for approval from the Saudi Royals.
• USA has huge interests in a state (Qatar) that is supposedly supporting the very organization that the USA is fighting. (11000 strong commitment)
• Trump has done exactly what Daesh would want him to do by generating conflict between neighbors and invite war to break out among Muslims but most importantly if his narcissistic indiscretion is revealed, he risks the USA being kicked out of Qatar.

In other words the whole recent angst regarding Qatar that has been generated is based primarily on Trump BS as he takes advantage of local paranoia, hysteria and conspiracy theories to support his quest for approval ( NPD )

In the mean time the incredible tragedy of the Saudi promoted Yemen blockade is unfolding and the Qatar blockade is a useful distraction.

 

[Schmelzer]

Separation of powers: The President does not control the CIA.

you have claimed Trump's policies and agenda run contrary to the intelligence agencies that favored Clinton (and the deep state).

So, we have agreement between me and Quack that there is no "use of the CIA" by Trump, once he is neither able nor allowed to control it. But you claim I was somehow making some "comparison of Trump's use of CIA", a phrase which presupposes Trump's use of the CIA as a fact.

Btw: I, like most Americans of my faction, am solidly opposed to the US military and black ops removal of secular and stable regimes in the Middle East with chaos and jihad waiting to replace them - just as we were opposed to the removal of the often democratic and soundly governing regimes they replaced, last generation, which got us into this mess. But we don't need a "deep state" to explain such folly and evil - the State itself, in the hands of the appropriate factions and acting on the Party agenda, is sufficient and indicated. The bogeymen are not hidden from us and inexplicably influential - they are known and official actors. For forty years now, they've been mostly Republicans. Trump continues this - that's one reason we so opposed his election.

So you have opposed Obama's foreign policy, which was exactly "black ops removal of secular and stable regimes", namely in Libya and Syria? Sorry if I have not recognized this.

Do we accept that Trump's low self esteem leads him to beg for the admiration and favor of others?

I prefer not to argue about personal properties of leaders of enemy states. Personal defamation against leading figures of the political enemy is a cheap and despicable propaganda technique, I oppose it when I see it, so I will not do such things myself.

Your theory that Trump has caused this is wrong, given that the conflict itself is old. What I can more or less agree with is

• Trump failed to realize the consequences of his impulsive quest for approval from the Saudi Royals.
• USA has huge interests in a state (Qatar) that is supposedly supporting the very organization that the USA is fighting. (11000 strong commitment)
• Trump has done exactly what Daesh would want him to do by generating conflict between neighbors and invite war to break out among Muslims but most importantly if his narcissistic indiscretion is revealed, he risks the USA being kicked out of Qatar.

Except that this presupposes some common US interest shared by all the factions. Does the Trump faction share the huge interest in the state Qatar? The real interests of the Trump factions are hidden. What we have, as information about them, are the real actions as well as the campaign promises. (Iceaura has, additionally, own prejudices against fascist Republicans, and will reach other conclusions.) Above sources of information do not indicate that Trump shares the "US interest" in having a big base in Qatar. Trump was, say, sufficiently attractive (in comparison to Clinton) for the Ron Paul faction, and Ron Paul has openly proposed to go out of all foreign bases, without even waiting for being kicked out. And what he is actually doing also does not look like he shares that "US interest".

So, once all this looks like he is really doing what he has promised to do, why should I think he is simply too stupid to do what he has not promised, namely to do the best for the "US interest" which I name globalist interest?

 

[iceaura]

The real interests of the Trump factions are hidden. What we have, as information about them, are the real actions as well as the campaign promises.

Remember when you objected to my observation that you were taking Trump's campaign promises at face value? I recommended then that you pay attention to actions, instead.
Trumps actions so far have been to fill his administration with advocates of corporate imperialism, globalist plutocrats, and supporters of military force, while stepping up the drone wars etc. and cutting back on diplomacy as well as negotiated multipolar economic arrangements.

All his actions have been in the service of rightwing authoritarian plutocracy and its military/black ops support. That is, a unipolar corporate hegemony, a global scale government of corporate plutocrats organized multinationally, run by Trump and his "Family", backed and enforced primarily by the US military.

So, once all this looks like he is really doing what he has promised to do,

Again the naive focus on Trump's "promises".

You have presented no such "doing", because there hasn't been any - there is only what you in your complete ignorance regard as political associations and alliances indicating approval for policies not in evidence.

You have no idea what Trump's policy toward Qatar might be, for example - and you should consider the obvious possibility that Trump does not know or care about the military base in Qatar, except as it either furthers or impedes the corporate hegemony agenda behind the support for his business dealings.

But you claim I was somehow making some "comparison of Trump's use of CIA", a phrase which presupposes Trump's use of the CIA as a fact.

That phrase is your invention, which you should not have put in quotes as if it were mine.
Basing your response specifically on it is strawmanning, of course, as you inevitably do when cornered once again.

So you have opposed Obama's foreign policy, which was exactly "black ops removal of secular and stable regimes", namely in Libya and Syria? Sorry if I have not recognized this.

Your famous inability to see and recognize and know, your willful and rigidly maintained ignorance of plain fact, once again presented as evidence of something.

There is a great deal you have chosen not to "recognize", despite having it readily available on the internet and posted in front of you over and over and over again here (as my objections to the regime change efforts in Libya and Syria have been, explicitly and repeatedly, for many months now).

Your refusal to acknowledge the openly fascistic nature of Trump and his Presidency depends on that pattern of choosing, your ignorance on those choices, and your arguments on that ignorance and habits of rhetoric. Why do you do that?

 

[Schmelzer]

Remember when you objected to my observation that you were taking Trump's campaign promises at face value? I recommended then that you pay attention to actions, instead.

Of course. I do not plan to take them at face value. And, as you could have seen from my quote, "What we have, as information about them, are the real actions as well as the campaign promises", I pay attention to actions once we have information about them, even without your recommendations. We are discussing here some particular action, namely what he has done in SA and in relation to Qatar.

You have no idea what Trump's policy toward Qatar might be, for example - and you should consider the obvious possibility that Trump does not know or care about the military base in Qatar, except as it either furthers or impedes the corporate hegemony agenda behind the support for his business dealings.

Which is what I'm doing. BTW, I have not arranged you as my teacher or so. It would be much better for the discussion if you would simply add some information which you have found about Qatar, instead of giving unnecessary and unrequested recommendations.

That phrase is your invention, which you should not have put in quotes as if it were mine.

No, this is exactly your phrase, see #1771: "since the content you were dealing with was a comparison of Trump's use of CIA and related violence in the Middle East".