The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

Of course. I do not plan to take them at face value.

You just did. You compared them with his actions, or what you assumed his actions would be if he had taken any, and announced a correspondence.

I pay attention to actions once we have information about them, even without your recommendations.

You don't seem to have done that, so far. You have ignored Trump's actions almost completely, except to excuse them as signs of deep state influence or pressure.

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.

Again with the deflections, avoidance mechanisms. No information about Qatar is relevant in this except as it refers to what Trump does or doesn't know - a matter neither of us has the slightest information on.
You are assuming Trump has an actual policy regarding Qatar and similar issues. That is pure speculation - there is no evidence he bothers himself with the matter.

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".

But that was
1) a reference to Trump's use of CIA and related violence, not "the CIA" - the difference being of course Trump's intensification of the drone strikes and granting teh CIA greater latitude in launching them: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gave-cia-power-to-launch-drone-strikes-1489444374
2) embedded in a claim that you were refusing to make such a comparison, avoiding it, pretending to be posting on unrelated matters,

rather than this:

But you claim I was somehow making some "comparison of Trump's use of CIA",

So take your pick of strawmen to own up to - I'm indifferent. But recognize that the pattern here - you strawmanning and avoiding and not dealing with content - is completely obvious.

And your entire posting on Trump rests on that - as does the posting of every other Trump apologist here.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

You may not realize the contradiction/hypocrisy here, so I shall put it forward for you to assess.
When you claim that an elected leader is somehow corrupted by a collusive relationship with a "deep state" what are you saying about the persons ethics and morality?
What is the claim when you suggest:

• Insider trading
• Secret commissions
• Fraud
• Deception
• Extortion
• Homicide
• Genocide
  
• etc

Yet you say you wish not to argue the personal properties of leaders of enemy states...when that is all you have been doing from day one... ( Character assassination re: Hillary Clinton etc)

I may suggest that the evidence is clear that Trump is mentally challenged. It is clearly demonstrated in countless video recordings. Any assessment of Trumps behavior and impact on the wider world MUST take into account that we are not dealing with a level playing field. The goal posts are ill-defined and moving all the time as demonstrated in recent posts here.

 

[Schmelzer]

When you claim that an elected leader is somehow corrupted by a collusive relationship with a "deep state" what are you saying about the persons ethics and morality?

Nothing good, but essentially nothing, because corruption is, together with the whole collection of of negative things regarding morality and ethics, already part of "politician". In a quite general form.

Yet you say you wish not to argue the personal properties of leaders of enemy states...when that is all you have been doing from day one... ( Character assassination re: Hillary Clinton etc)

Indeed, the Clinton videos have been an exception from the rule, I have seen there some evidence of some special personal condition. And I was misguided, as I have said when I have seen (without iceaura's help) another video, where she has shown a strange ability to move above eyes in a completely independent, uncoordinated way. This strange medical condition was obviously what had some influence on how she looks usually too, and what makes her look like a monster. (I would recommend her to become an actor in horror movies with this special ability.)

I may suggest that the evidence is clear that Trump is mentally challenged.

Feel free to do this, but I will not care about this.

If I correct iceaura's obvious distortions, I'm strawmanning and avoiding the content. Not avoiding the content obviously means accepting the lies about me. Sorry, no, I will have to continue "strawmanning and avoiding the content". And, given the history, there is only one possibility to avoid it, namely that iceaura stops writing about what I think.

But that was
1) a reference to Trump's use of CIA and related violence, ....
2) embedded in a claim that ...

Whatever it was, it was your phrase, so that

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

was a lie.

 

[iceaura]

Indeed, the Clinton videos have been an exception from the rule,

You have no such rule - much of your posting on political figures is of personal attributes, in common with much of your commentary on other people's posting here. It's how you roll.

Sorry, no, I will have to continue "strawmanning and avoiding the content". And, given the history, there is only one possibility to avoid it, namely that iceaura stops writing about what I think.

I've been writing about what you post, not what you think (if it's different from what you post). There is no honest confusion possible about that, either - so such a contrived setup for namecalling and personal attack is not enough cover.

Whatever it was, it was your phrase, so that

The abridgment you put in quotes and deceptive context - thereby suggesting the opposite of its meaning, the better to argue against it - was misleading, and of your invention; and now we see that was intentional.
Then you call my post a lie?
Hmmm.

Meanwhile, Trump's reversal of Obama's restrictions on CIA drone strikes and related acts of violence, coincident with his ramping up of these "anti-terrorism" operations -

which is an expansion of the CIA's role in Trump's intensification of what you have labeled "globalist" violence (and you are not wrong in that) while insisting that Trump is not a "globalist" (for some reason)

which was predicted by Americans who had an informed view of Trump and his Republican agenda (this role for the CIA in the conflicts auxiliary to the Iraq War was a Republican administration's policy development, along with the torture prisons and so forth, all of this of course characteristic of fascist governance)

seems to have some bearing on your misdirection and misrepresentation of that phrase you altered. Because those actions of Trump are the context of your posting in this thread - and you have claimed several times that you pay attention to actions, and do not take speeches etc at face value.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Trump the globalist:

 

[Quantum Quack]

One thing is pretty obvious about Trump and Putin Supporters.
They can't criticize their performance.
Schmelzer has been dodging the obvious.

• He can't criticize Trump
• He can't* criticize Putin

Possible reasons:

1. blackmail
2. extortion
3. financial
4. worship!!

or a mixture of any and more.

hmmm....
As Trump supporters also ALL suffer a similar "mind" block, that leaves only one possibility IMO

One that I'll keep to my self for the moment

(*) I use the word "can't" deliberately as I believe, he/they, literally, can not physically utter or write reasoned criticism of Trump... (or Putin)

You may also notice that there have been reports that Putin's support in Russia has been growing strongly recently in ways that may not be easily explained.

 

[Schmelzer]

The abridgment you put in quotes and deceptive context - thereby suggesting the opposite of its meaning, the better to argue against it - was misleading, and of your invention; and now we see that was intentional.
Then you call my post a lie?

Of course, because "That phrase is your invention, which you should not have put in quotes as if it were mine." is an obvious lie. Even if your accusations would be correct (they are not) this would be a lie.

Meanwhile, Trump's reversal of Obama's restrictions on CIA drone strikes and related acts of violence, coincident with his ramping up of these "anti-terrorism" operations - which is an expansion of the CIA's role in Trump's intensification of what you have labeled "globalist" violence (and you are not wrong in that) while insisting that Trump is not a "globalist" (for some reason)

I'm not insisting on anything at all here. Trump has already made a lot of things which the deep state wants. The most important one was bombing the Syrian airbase. After that, I was already quite close to thinking that he is now a deep state puppet, like Obama was, and will do everything what the deep state wants. Allowing the CIA to do more things was, of course, also evidence in this direction.

But what has happened in SA and the Qatar conflict seems to point in a different direction. At least I cannot imagine a reason why the deep state, or what I name the globalists, would be interested in a serious conflict between SA and Qatar.

Schmelzer has been dodging the obvious.

• He can't criticize Trump
• He can't* criticize Putin

(*) I use the word "can't" deliberately as I believe, he/they, literally, can not physically utter or write reasoned criticism of Trump... (or Putin)

LOL. Trump has done acts of military aggression against a sovereign state, Syria, under violation of international law. He has, with high probability, lied about the reasons doing this (I cannot believe that he seriously believed that gas attack BS). What the US is actually doing in Syria is anything but not fighting the IS - they are much more fighting the Syrian army, explicitly as well as implicitly.

If I would be a globalist, or at least pro-American, I would have much more to criticize. But, as you understand, these are things I do not criticize because I would like to see more of this. The SA-Qatar conflict is a good start. More of this, please.

That I do not want to criticize Putin here, even if there would be something worth to be criticized, I have already explained. Given that these are moral reasons, to have the fun to prove you wrong is not enough to do this.

Unfortunately, all this is again only defense against personal attacks, instead of some discussion about the content - Trump and the SA-Qatar conflict.

 

[Quantum Quack]

LOL. Trump has done acts of military aggression against a sovereign state, Syria, under violation of international law. He has, with high probability, lied about the reasons doing this (I cannot believe that he seriously believed that gas attack BS). What the US is actually doing in Syria is anything but not fighting the IS - they are much more fighting the Syrian army, explicitly as well as implicitly.

Do you believe that Trump is a competent leader?

 

[Quantum Quack]

An interesting public FB post: ( re: SA and Qatar dispute)
Authors name available upon request (PM):

This makes sense, read all of the way to the end.

• In case you haven't connected the news dots... Putin owns the largest oil company in Russia.
• He made a 500 Billion dollar deal with the CEO of Exxon Mobil. Obama put sanctions in place which stopped that deal.
• Russia then hacked into our government in order to get Trump elected.
• When the CIA told Congress this in September (James Comey was also in that meeting), Mitch McConnell refused to tell the American people, blackmailing Obama saying he would frame it as playing partisan politics during the election.
• Comey released the infamous no-information letter.
• Mitch McConnell's wife was picked for Trump's cabinet.
• The CEO of Exxon is now the Secretary of State.
• Wonder why our President has been so quick to dismiss the CIA's findings?.........it gets better.....

Here are some facts : Decide for yourselves

1) Trump owes Blackstone/ Bayrock group $560 million dollars (one of his largest debtors and the primary reason he won't reveal his tax returns)
2) Blackstone is owned wholly by Russian billionaires, who owe their position to Putin and have made billions from their work with the Russian government.
3) Other companies that have borrowed from Blackstone have claimed that owing money to them is like owing to the Russian mob and while you owe them, they own you for many favors.
4) The Russian economy is badly faltering under the weight of its over-dependence on raw materials which as you know have plummeted in the last 2 years leaving the Russian economy scrambling to pay its debts.
5) Russia has an impetus to influence our election to ensure the per barrel oil prices are above $65 ( they are currently hovering around $50)
6) Russia can't affordably get at 80% of its oil reserves and reduce its per barrel cost to compete with America at $45 or Saudi Arabia at $39. With Iranian sanctions being lifted Russia will find another inexpensive competitor increasing production and pushing Russia further down the list of suppliers.

As for Iranian sanctions, the 6 countries lifting them allowing Iran to collect on the billions it is owed for pumping oil but not being paid for it. These billions Iran can only get if the Iranian nuclear deal is signed. Trump spoke of ending the deals which would cause oil sales sanctions to be reimposed, which would make Russian oil more competitive.
7) Rex Tillerson (Trump's pick for Secretary of State) is the head of ExxonMobil, which is in possession of patented technology that could help Putin extract 45% more oil at a significant cost savings to Russia, helping Putin put money in the Russian coffers to help reconstitute its military and finally afford to mass produce the new and improved systems that it had invented before the Russian economy had slowed so much.
8) Putin cannot get access to these new cost saving technologies OR outside oil field development money, due to US sanctions on Russia, because of its involvement in Ukrainian civil war.
9) Look for Trump to end sanctions on Russia and to back out of the Iranian nuclear deal, to help Russia rebuild its economy, strengthen Putin and make Tillerson and Trump even richer, thus allowing Trump to satisfy his creditors at Blackstone.
10) With Trump's fabricated hatred of NATO and the U.N., the Russian military reconstituted, the threat to the Baltic states is real. Russia retaking their access to the Baltic Sea from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and threatening the shipping of millions of cubic feet of natural gas to lower Europe from Scandinavia, allowing Russia to make a good case for its oil and gas being piped into eastern Europe.

Sources: Time Magazine, NY Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian UK.​

 

[Kittamaru]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...aks-trump-s-promise-lower-deductibles-n776361

President Donald Trump may not have the most detailed knowledge of health care policy, but he knows what people hate: High deductibles.

Democrats slam GOP healthcare proposal as Obamacare premiums & deductibles increase by over 100%. Remember keep your doctor, keep your plan?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2017
Trump has made these complaints about Obamacare, which are shared by many insurance customers and critics of the bill alike, a centerpiece of his rhetoric on health care for years.

“Our healthcare plan will lower premiums & deductibles — and be great healthcare!” he tweeted last month. A few days earlier he tweeted that Republicans would provide “much lower premiums & deductibles.” In March, he complained that “deductibles are so high you don’t even get to use [insurance]" under Obamacare.

But the Senate bill released last week and the House bill passed last month take the opposite approach: They include policies that encourage higher deductibles and dramatically raise out-of-pocket costs, in some cases by thousands of dollars per person. The president has embraced both efforts even though they violate his repeated promises.

Don the Con lied about ANOTHER of his campaign promises? Say it ain't so!!!

Under Obamacare, the amount of subsidies customers receive to buy coverage are pegged to the price a “silver” plan, which covers about 70 percent of the average user’s medical costs. The average deductibles for these plans right now are about $3,500 for individuals and $7,500 for families, according to an analysis by the consumer site HealthPocket.

But the Senate bill instead pegs its subsidies to insurance plans that cover only 58 percent of costs. Similar plans on the marketplace this year have average deductibles of more than $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for families.

That means customers face an increase of thousands of dollars in deductibles unless they pay more in premiums.

That's not the only provision that hikes deductibles, though. Both the House and Senate bills eliminate subsidies that were created just to lower deductibles for low-income customers.

Under Obamacare, insurers cover a large portion of out-of-pocket costs for individuals making up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level — about $30,000 for an individual and $61,000 for a family of four. In exchange, the federal government reimburses them for the difference. The theory is that customers in this income range would otherwise struggle to benefit from a silver plan with deductibles of $7,500.

But the House and Senate bills each eliminate these cost-sharing provisions — and the effects would be dramatic, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. If you’re an individual making around $18,000 a year, your effective deductible would be about $255 under Obamacare. Under the Senate bill, though, that number would jump to over $6,000 — almost 24 times higher.

So it is dropping from 70% cost coverage to around 58% cost coverage... meanwhile deductibles will go from 3500 - 7500 to 6000 - 12000... oh, and you will be responsible for more of that deductible now.

Nice, higher co-pays, much higher deductibles, and less ability to get coverage (pre-existing conditions, mental health services, etc)

Avik Roy, a prominent Republican health adviser who's supportive of the Senate bill, told NBC News that allowing higher deductible plans, along with other features like allowing insurers to charge older customers higher rates, could lower premiums for young healthy customers. If enough of them entered the marketplace, it could potentially bring down premiums and costs more broadly and perhaps even deductibles.

To encourage this trend, the Senate bill’s subsidies are more generous for younger customers and less generous for older ones, who could face a significant hike in premiums to go on top of their higher deductibles.

So... Republicans are pinning their hopes on the idea that by offering high deductible plans and charging the sick and/or elderly out the ass, it will lower premiums for "healthy young customers"...

Of course, because when given the option between "save money and pass the savings on to customers" or "save money and pocket the difference as extra profits", insurance companies will ALWAYS side with the consumer, right? Right...? Oh... fuck... And they think that somehow charging the sick and aging more will help drive deductibles down... the fuck?

Why would "healthy young customers", many of whom are struggling with things like student loan debt and a housing market that is rapidly pricing many areas out of their range, bother buying insurance AT ALL, knowing their deductibles would be so high they could never use it?

Lol, good grief... this is comedic gold, except that it is reality for us all.

 

[joepistole]

That I do not want to criticize Putin here, even if there would be something worth to be criticized, I have already explained. Given that these are moral reasons, to have the fun to prove you wrong is not enough to do this.

You don't want to criticize Putin anywhere comrade, probably because if you did you wouldn't get paid and would probably wind up inside a Russian gulag.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You don't want to criticize Putin anywhere comrade, probably because if you did you wouldn't get paid and would probably wind up inside a Russian gulag.

Still waiting for him to provide a proper assessment of Trumps competency....

 

[Schmelzer]

Do you believe that Trump is a competent leader?

From what I can see, I do not conclude that he is competent. On the other hand, it is yet unclear to me if he is really incompetent. What looked like incompetence in the election campaign was successful. The question is if by some strange accident or by an intentional strategy, which appeared successful. The impression was that he was intentional bullshitting to confuse the media. At least in part, say, with all his violations of PC rules, it was intentional, and the media were mislead into criticizing his PC violations which made him even more popular among PC haters.

By the way, if https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html is correct, then his stupid-and-incompetent-looking "evil Assad gassed babies" was indeed a lie. So, at least some part of what makes him looking stupid is fake, and in particular this fake has helped him a lot.

On the other hand, there are things which, nonetheless, make me think that he is incompetent.

Regarding that FB post, I would classify it as not very plausible.

 

[iceaura]

I'm not insisting on anything at all here.

You were. You were insisting that Trump was not a "globalist".

Trump has already made a lot of things which the deep state wants.

They were identified in advance as things Trump wanted, by people who (unlike you) were right about Trump and his behavior in office.

The most important one was bombing the Syrian airbase. After that, I was already quite close to thinking that he is now a deep state puppet, like Obama was, and will do everything what the deep state wants. Allowing the CIA to do more things was, of course, also evidence in this direction.

And you claimed that was some kind of a change in Trump's nature and mode of behavior - instead of the likely and indicated behaviors expected of Trump by Americans who were better informed than you are, based on his nature and agenda and past behaviors.

But what has happened in SA and the Qatar conflict seems to point in a different direction. At least I cannot imagine a reason why the deep state, or what I name the globalists, would be interested in a serious conflict between SA and Qatar.

Which if you had better sense would lead to a pause and a rethinking of your assumptions about this "deep state" you can never name or describe, and the evershifting membership in the "globalist" category that always seems to be surprising you.

You will continue to be confused as long as your blind spot for fascism hides from you major factions and players in US foreign policy - searching for the deep ideological state the US does not possess, you overlook the very bad shallow corporate one that it does.

The Republican Party is the deal here. Trump is a Republican - a mainstream post-Reagan Republican President in all relevant respects except personality. That means fascism, as with Putin, and in the US that means Big Oil is involved, as with Russia. Follow the money, not the ideological presumptions and "multipolar" jerkaround.

 

[Schmelzer]

Iceaura, I'm happy for you that your sources are so much better, fine. I have learned in my childhood that self-praise stinks. I have learned later that Americans have a different relation to self-praise, more like if you don't praise yourself, nobody will do it.

But, please stop interpreting what I say. If you think, something is wrong, simply quote it and correct it. The reason is that you are almost always wrong. I have left the "almost" simply to secure myself, maybe there was some exception, which I have overseen and forgotten. So, the deep state is not at all an ideological state. It may use ideology for the sheeple, but the deep state itself is about power, and, of course, making money out of this power. And the multipolar world too. Russians and Chinese want, first of all, power over their own states (sovereignty).

 

[joepistole]

Trump lies since taking office:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?_r=0

 

[iceaura]

But, please stop interpreting what I say. If you think, something is wrong, simply quote it and correct it.

That's what I've been doing. Deal with it. If you don't know that you are posting standard AGW denial bs as fed to the media by the American Heritage Foundation and similar sources, for example (the Republican Party line in the US), consider yourself informed. If you forgot that you specifically and ridiculously excluded Republican Trump and his corporate rightwing imperialist unipolar associates (look at his cabinet) from the list of people you called "globalists", consider yourself reminded of conceptual error. And so forth.
Meanwhile, this will hold until you change your approach, and stop posting abysmal ignorance and crude fascist propaganda on this forum:

You will continue to be confused as long as your blind spot for fascism hides from you major factions and players in US foreign policy - searching for the deep ideological state the US does not possess, you overlook the very bad shallow corporate one that it does

You obviously can - your informed and informative takes on the Syrian conflict are quite different from your posting on Trump and US racism and similar arenas of ignorance, despite your naive presentation of Putin. So are your summaries of US malfeasance and ill-motivated, unwelcome, damaging power plays in second and third world countries you know something about. But there you have information, see - it makes a difference.

Trump lies since taking office:

More content. The content of Trump's twitters, speeches, etc, is not their central role or significance.

Jared Kushner hired Jack Abramoff's lawyer. http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06...urce=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=im
And the lawyer who represented Menendez, just now: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/26/jared-kushner-lowell-legal-team-239973
Jared still has high level security clearance, afaik. His lawyers may find that useful. If anyone was looking for "deep state" stuff - backdoor influence and the like.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Jared still has high level security clearance, afaik. His lawyers may find that useful. If anyone was looking for "deep state" stuff - backdoor influence and the like.

Do you seriously think that Jared would maintain such a high security clearance if there was ANY real evidence that would cast doubts about his integrity?

 

[Kittamaru]

Do you seriously think that Jared would maintain such a high security clearance if there was ANY real evidence that would cast doubts about his integrity?

Well, I mean, there was the whole thing with Michael Flynn being compromised so... Yeah, yes I do believe this administration would issue clearances to folks of low integrity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well, I mean, there was the whole thing with Michael Flynn being compromised so... Yeah, yes I do believe this administration would issue clearances to folks of low integrity.

Flynn doesn't have his clearance any more... yes?
But Jared does... so I repeat my question:

Do you seriously think that Jared would maintain such a high security clearance if there was ANY real evidence that would cast doubts about his integrity?

The reason I am being a little pedantic is the fact is , Jared still has his clearance, even after all the media hype
One must assume that it must be only media hype. for certainly if they had hard evidence as they did with Flynn, Jared would not still have his security clearance...
(or at least it would be suspended awaiting review)