The Trump Presidency

Some Russian media is carrying the news that DHS has declared the election to be the most secure in American history... - ironic

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah but Trump will soon be firing anyone like them that puts their head above the parapet.

"Flunkies apply here"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More Republican hypocrisy. McConnell is a serious asshole.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

mitch mcconnel gives turtles a bad name

 

Turtles are "good people". McConnell isn't.

 

I think Trump will write a new book, titled "The Art of the con". The greatest con in American history...

 

I have already found something which obviously is in conflict with your impossibility claim. Essentially on the first page of the well-known (but obviously unknown by you) opposition paper. So, to prove you wrong there is no necessity of further research. Your answer proves what remains - that you have nothing to present now, despite your claim of having monitored "Russian media for some time including some very local news outlets, ie. regional news etc...". If you would have monitored something, you would have been able to present at least something, you have presented nothing. Thus, you are a liar, and this is now established.

LOL. Looks like you have recognized that you have said too much about the Dem plans for future, you take it back and present it as a trick. Nice try.

No. My sources give references to their source of information, so that I can look at the original data. And in this indirect way I sometimes read some right-wing US sources. Your bad luck that references to liberal sources are there too, but usually only in the context of examples of primitive lies. (This is, of course, a typical reference to right-wing sources too.)

Directly from the US I read only libertarian sources. Mostly from anarcho-capitalist direction, that means right-wing for you, but these are certainly not the "low information voters", they read a lot, Mises, Rothbard, Friedman,...

Given that you have been unable to give even a single interesting quote, and that I have read the "evidence" against those few Russians already before (the firm has, AFAIU, defended itself, and not without success) there was simply nothing worth to read, I have much more valuable books yet to read.

That's a lie about climate change and the Civil War (which you know, given that I have quoted the sources you have given as well as others here, thus, an intentional lie). American racism as well as Trump's biography are beyond my interest. I haven't read Picketty, but this looks like you mean Piketty, I have read him, it is good that he has collected a lot of data. But, given that I have no envy, I personally don't care much about income inequality. Stiglitz looked like a typical Dem propagandist, whining for example about criminals not being allowed to vote if they plausibly vote for Dems but whining about "illicit activities" of Rep contributors:

Or whines about the Supreme Court becoming politicized (with, of course, only the Reps doing this) and later saying that some Supreme Court decision should be reversed, as part of a political agenda. So it is easy to see that you like him a lot, but this is simply propaganda, not reality. Why you think I haven't read de Soto is beyond me.

Wrong. The sources I prefer give the references. And you know even less about physical reality, given that you live in your bubble.

First of all, your fantasies about what I think have no factual origin in what I write.

Unable to identify obvious satirical elements in my writings? My sources are international, and they take into account not only what is written in your bubble of Western propaganda. For you, everything beyond left-wing Western propaganda comes from "one source". That's your fantasy. The consequence of your fantasy is that what those people worldwide who are not Western propaganda victims get all their information from your "one source". Your fantasy, your problem.

 

lol.
All you have established is that anti Putin media is not able to be found.
Look here is a quote to support my claims:
"______________________"
see there is no quotes to quote.... why is that do you think?

And besides I am sure if you really, really, really look you'll find someone brave but stupid enough to publish anti Putin facts for at least once or maybe twice and then the Gulag press takes over and you never see them or hear from them again...
Framing, poisoning and vanishing... 3 main methods employed...

 

It is sort of funny in a sick sort of way how there are anti-democracy protesters protesting around the White House.

Police make arrests for assault and weapon possession in Washington DC, as thousands of Donald Trump supporters march through the streets to protest against the result of the US election.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-15/us-election-live-blog-november-15/12884268

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have found them, there was not even a necessity to search them because everybody who knows Russian media knows some of them. I have quoted an example of an openly defamatory anti-Putin article in the actual issue. I can take a look into the actual site and find another one (and, again, the first one I have started to read today) https://echo.msk.ru/programs/code/2741466-echo/. It claims that all the Russian Corona data are faked, that the West is much better fighting Corona, and that Putin surrendered in Karabakh and conceded victory to Erdogan, distributes those fake news about Turkish peacekeepers in Karabakh. Complete nonsense, Twitter would delete similar anti-Biden texts, but it can be written in Russia without problems. Not once or maybe twice, you can look every day and find something anti-Putin in this newspaper.

And the senior editor of that paper Venedictov is a well-known media personality, every politically interested Russian would recognize his face, and I have seen him some years ago in one of those press conferences with Putin where he was asking a question, so that he is not even excluded from such events.

 

It is sort of funny how propaganda victims handle conflicts between their beliefs (here that pro Trump protesters are antidemocratic) and reality (how these protesters behave). They tend to think that those protesters are sick combining their anti-democratic beliefs with defense of democracy against election fraud.

 

I guess losing an election is one of the factors of democracy that no one likes except those who win.

 

Funny, the article you linked to is a transcript of a live video stream. As far as I can determine, and the page mostly forbids copy and paste translation.
Regarding the COVID issue , true, the Russian people have been able to express a certain objection, but this is not being critical of Putin's Government that threatens Putin's power base.
Say anything that actually threatens Putin's governance and the rest is history...repeating itself.

 

Not in matters of domestic American politics - they don't and you can't.

How is it you don't know that?

Because you haven't and won't. Looking at "original data" is something you have never done with regard to any issue involving domestic American politics on this forum - your method here has been to demand that other people do that for you, bring you quotes etc, and when they do refuse to read them or follow their arguments, but instead repeat your claims and demands. It's a rhetorical tactic or approach characteristic of one specific American political movement's propaganda operations for the past twenty or thirty years - any idea which? Clue: one of its manifestations is so frequent and distinct it has been named - the "Gish Gallop", named for an early spokesman for part of that movement's nascent coalition of support.

Meanwhile: Your source - whether you know it or not - is the media feed from the American rightwing corporate militarized mythically atavistic capitalist authoritarian etc etc etc (fascist, in the standard terminology of informed political analysis) propaganda operations. They don't have data support - there is no such data for you to look at if you wanted to.

And as you have repeatedly insisted here, you don't look at original data anyway - not by oversight but as conscious policy: your skills at gleaning information from competing propaganda feeds make that unnecessary, remember? It's not worth your time (you already know what it contains, from the propaganda you have evaluated), and besides: your skill at interpreting propaganda without recourse to physical realities means that the burden of proof is always on those who contradict your unsupported opinions.

That's been your explicit claim here for years now. That was your explicit explanation for why you had no idea what the researchers into climate change had discovered and published in the peer reviewed journals, for example, in another thread. That - as you explained to us - is why you have not read the Mueller Report before expounding on its contents, but instead demanded that other people read it for you and provide you with quotes etc if they think you are wrong about it. That's why you didn't know how and by whom climate research is funded in the US, got the direction of political pressure completely backwards, and then demanded that other people prove your ignorant and unsupported claims wrong by "looking at the original data" and summarizing it for you with evidence etc (which I made the mistake of doing - whereupon you simply denied what I showed you, and continued to post your wingnut fantasy from your usual source).

If you had read him, you would know better than to claim "envy" as relevant to his analysis or "income" inequality as the issue he addresses.
Also: "envy" is the standard disparagement of economic inequality critics fed to the media by the American fascist propaganda operations for decades now. As it has no other connection to Piketty's work, my posts here, or anything relevant to this thread, that would be the most likely and obvious source of your spontaneous throw-in there. Multiply that by dozens, and even you can see how your source was identified, years ago.

It's of course an obvious fact that the Republicans have politicized the Supreme Court far beyond anything even attempted by the Democrats - their last several appointments, going back to the 1980s and by now comprising a solid majority of the Nine, have all been openly Partisan in both their writings and their careers, and a couple of them had almost no other qualifications for the job (Kavanaugh, for example) There are now three sitting Justices (including the Chief Justice) who worked directly for the Republican Party to obtain the Supreme Court's now universally regretted interference in the Florida vote count that would have elected Al Gore President in 2000, for example
You have lost track of whom you are quoting there, along with the argument.
I thought you hadn't read de Soto (and I know you haven't read Piketty - in addition to displaying ignorance of his writing you said as much, remember?) because your posts reveal ignorance of his viewpoint, analysis, and observations. I admit I could be wrong in my assumption that anyone who had read de Soto would have learned from what he wrote - you have obviously learned nothing from what you read here, for example. Is that your claim?

I don't post about what you think. I post about what you write. And that's the third or fourth time you have made that "mistake".
Tip: Your namecalling ("liar", etc) might carry more weight if you avoided such conflicting and mistaken personal attacks. If you don't even know what I'm posting about, how do you know I'm lying?

Your sources for domestic American issues are the media feeds from the American fascist political movement.
You are unable to post satire here - Poe's Law, plus: one cannot satirize in ignorance.

Your source - the American fascist political movement's media feeds - assumes you don't read it. Most of its targets can't read well in the first place. That's how it works.
Meanwhile, you clearly don't read libertarian American sources - you are unable to identify libertarian American sources (you don't recognize me or my sources as libertarian, for example), probably because the fascist media feeds that own you have been working to destroy the meaning of that term (along with "socialist" and "conservative" and so forth - a standard tactic of fascist propaganda operations). As far as I can recall every American political writer you have named here as having read - you very seldom take the risk of naming your claimed influences, for obvious reasons - has been a rightwing authoritarian dealing in utter bullshit.

Only harmless comedy.
Let us know when a Russian newspaper publishes Putin's taxes and independently verified financial records, as had been routine for US Presidents until Trump broke his promise and started defying subpoenas.

 

Or alternatively Schmelzer could actually get in touch with journalists in Russia and find out directly the amount of intimidation, coercion and down right extortion being applied to ensure they tow the party line...

 

seriously considering you subscribe to an ideology notorious for it's toxic hatred of democracy it is laughable that you are pretending to be defending democracy. trumps thugs are anti democratic, there has long been the understanding that if conservatives were ever were forced to choose between conservativism and democracy it would not be democracy they choose.

 

https://www.forbes.ru/obshchestvo/4...al-putin-i-kto-stal-samym-bogatym-chinovnikom
https://russiantrends.ru/people/skolko-zarabatyvaet-prezident-rossii-vladimir-putin

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have used copy and paste from the first source, now tried copy and paste from the second source too.

[/QUOTE]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

His power base is the constitution of Russia, and the fact that he is the elected president. And the people supporting him. The government is, BTW, not Putin's, the premier is Mishustin.

Sorry, but where do you see me defending democracy? I'm libertarian.
Whatever, if progressives were ever were forced to choose between socialism and democracy it would not be democracy they choose. And even if correct it would not matter in both cases. Once there are some remains of democracy, once there are some sort of elections, one can legitimately defend such elections against fraud without in any way contradicting oneself.

(And just to clarify again: I do not claim myself that there was fraud. I'm happy that the results have been that close and that what happened looked sufficiently suspect, so that now those parts of the world not under Western propaganda umbrella and half of the US voters believe the elections have been stolen. This essentially weakens US soft power, given the big role election fraud claims play in US regime change operations.

 

Nonsense. They do and I can. I know that because I know my sources (you don't). And my sources refer to their own sources.

Once you name it with bad words like "propaganda", it is obviously Rep. In reality it may be used by Dems too, or even much more. Ok, let's look at "Gish Gallop". Indeed, a quite common tactic, you have used it many times in the climate discussions, and it is standard in anti-Russian attacks. Say, all those poison attacks or murdering journalists by Putin or Assad. Each particular case is quite weak, starting with the failure to meet the cui bono argument, but the Western propaganda likes to repeat it again and again.

A lie. I always look at the original data of the claims I use. You will find quotes and references in my arguments. Say, in https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate about the climate hysteria.

My skill is to extract information about reality from propaganda sources. And to formulate my own claims in a quite accurate way, so that I have quotes and reference for those things where the burden of proof is on my side. And if I don't have them, I make no claims where I would have the burden of proof. This is the way rational people work in a world where information is incomplete and distorted. If I don't have enough information, I formulate my opinion in such a way that the burden of proof is on the side of those who contradict me. This is simply rational thinking.

What's your problem with this? Of course, as long as I don't question those results of climate scientists which are not interesting for me, I don't have to know those papers. The scientific methodology has clear and simple rules which fix who has the burden of proof. One major tool for this is the zero hypothesis: If there is no empirical evidence about some correlation, the burden of proof is on the side of those who claim there is a correlation. Then, for general, "forall" claims the burden of proof is on the side which could falsify that claim, existence claims have to be prove by those who claim existence. Whenever you think some claim I made about reality is wrong, think about who has the burden of proof and behave accordingly. If you think the burden of proof is on my side, ask for evidence, if it is on your side, provide the evidence.

I see no reason to read the Mueller report because I have seen no information that this report contains something interesting for me. Reading, say, more from, once you have mentioned them, de Soto or Stiglitz, even Piketty, would be more valuable for me. If, say, you would somewhere make a claim I would disagree with, and support this with a quote from the report, this would probably change the situation and I would read at least some environment of that quote (that's necessary to check if you quoted out of context), and, if necessary, correct my position. Or, possibly, your point is so irrelevant that I couldn't care less. Then I can simply accept this claim, and can continue to ignore the reference. You have never done such a thing. So the report remains uninteresting. It looks like you think that my decision not to read it is somehow an argument against me. Of course, you use it to "prove" your 'you read nothing' lies (I will use now ' instead of " if it is not an exact quote once you have objected against the " in such cases). But in our time one simply cannot read everything and one has to make reasonable, rational decisions what to read and what to ignore. Therefore I explain here the rational base of my decisions not to read particular things.

Similar for funding of climate research. Once I have not made particular claims about the direction (despite your lies about getting "the direction of political pressure completely backwards" for climate science I have not made such claims for climate research. (I have made general claims that the actual situation with young scientists in extreme job insecurity forces them to follow mainstream fads. Which is something completely different.)

Learn to read. I have not said envy is relevant to his analysis. Envy can be a motivation to read this analysis and to care about the results, in my case this motivation is missing. That's all. If you think income inequality is irrelevant for Piketty, describe your position.

I can give you the source for my using "envy" in a quite explicit way: Schoeck, H. (1969). Envy. A book which I found very interesting and highly recommend.

Given that this claim was written by iceaura and politicizing courts is something bad, the conclusion is certainly obvious. The fact on the ground is that the US Supreme Court is highly politicized, the last change was the replacement of a highly politicized left-wing court by a highly politicized right-wing court, bad luck for the Dems, but I couldn't care less. Except for the fact that this court is highly politicized, which is the type of information one can easily extract from the propaganda sources. See, this sentence does not even attempt to deny that something in this direction has been attempted by the Dems too. (Funny reading, actually the Reps are leading, but the Dems have already planned to take the court back simply by increasing the numbers, and, of course, all new courts will be partizan Dems.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

The possibility that his viewpoint and analysis has not convinced me does not exist?

No. I have often enough called you a liar and challenged to support your claim about me with a quote, and you were never able to do this.

I have identified you as a statist based on your statist argumentation, in particular based on your insistence of the necessity of government for essentially everything. Of course, I'm on the anarcho-capitalist side, the left-wing "libertarians" are IMHO quite suspect, their theory is quite inconsistent and inconsistent theory usually leads to something completely unlibertarian if implemented. So, indeed, I do not accept everybody who names himself libertarian as really libertarian.

 

Some things just never change...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well found(at the time it might have sounded a bit of a stretch but it sure rings true today)