The Trump Presidency

I agree. BTW, the point of my link (just to clarify, I was simply following a link, Fox is nothing I would look) was the bipartisan agreement. That's why "America", not "Trump" or "Republicans".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you are mistaken about the "bipartisan agreement", as well as any "bipartisan agreement" signifying "America".
That is a Republican Party corporate financed propaganda meme - has been for forty years, especially prevalent and effective since about 1992.
You sucker for Republican media operations, because you have no information - you are reduced to treating everything as equivalent propaganda feeds, and they are the best in the world. They own you.

Israel does not necessarily know that. Israel has gained much via prior wars, and its current government is belligerent and militaristic. It's worth remembering that almost everyone who ever started a war was confident that the war would be short, and they themselves victorious.
The US is not the only country to have been led into war by the likes of W and Cheney.
And thinking of "the world" as being baited may mislead. Only a couple of countries are likely targets of such baiting. China, for example, is not - military development or no.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why does that matter? The intent to cause mass death is inherent with such weapons. Syria has lost any pretence of sovereignty at this point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure,
you keep harboring in the past, as if there is a desire to force the old saying "History repeating itself" into being true.

There is however a few unprecedented factors that may significantly change the international paradigm.

• A main factor could be that surely over half the worlds population is well aware of the pending doom and gloom of climate change. That the threat of hyperthermia en masse is real and imminent.
• How does it feel to realize that in 20 or so years ( or less) there may not be a credible political system any where, let alone in the USA? eh?..Republican party? what party?

This factor alone, even if held in a state of denial, is enough to change the repetitive nature of history.

• Another main factor is the rapid uptake of global communications ( Internet). An extremely pervasive factor that Bush and Cheney never really had to contend with. Global Social media uptake, participation and manipulation are factors even now have yet to peak, in other words IMO there is much more to come. ( as demonstrated in China surveillance state and social engineering ambitions)
• However it does also have the productive potential to co-ordinate a global response to climate change events.

Harboring in the 'ole days whilst necessary to ground your thoughts, may only inhibit your speculation if done too strongly. A typical fear based response yes?

In other words, and with all due respect, I believe you need to keep up with what is currently happening in the world if you wish to put together any utility in what you are theorizing upon.

The Trump phenomena is not a Bush nor a Cheney. Nor is he a Reagan or a Kennedy. He is I believe quite unique in a really bizarre way.
He is a product of social media, Twitter, Facebook, Fox news. Of audience ratings. A public figure that is all too public. A person whose self esteem is so low that he is almost entirely dependent on often perverse public opinion and ratings when it comes to the formation of his decisions, ideas and sense of self worth.
=======

and

let me respond by asking another question(s):

If you had chemical WMD's and knew that their use was not only illegal by international standards, they were also immoral by human(e) standards and entirely abhorrent to any reasonable person, would you:

1. launch an apparent attack that fails to kill any one? UK
2. launch an attack that kills only a few but opens doors for evidence collecting, blaming and potentially world war? ( Syria)
3. Would you use Chemical weapons as a "tactical" instead of a WMD?

Would you be so stupid? If you were then how the hell did you acquire the WMD's in the first place?

The use of chemical weapons in such a "tactical" way reeks of baiting for the reasons implied above. IMO

 

Not me.
I'm just pointing out the nature of Israel's 1) history and 2) current government, to support the thesis that since encouraging fights among its neighbors has worked well for Israel so far, it's reasonable to keep in mind they might still be doing it.

You are not making sense.
The major influence of climate change on Israel might easily be to make its securing of water supplies it is not entitled to even more of a priority than it has been, for example. Do more of the same, in other words, for higher stakes.

He's just the latest Republican President, only unusually vulgar.

So was Reagan, mutatis mutandis.
So was the entire Republican takeover of Congress in the 90s, led by Rush Limbaugh and other media figures.

G0 back and review the lefty analysis of W's campaign and tenure.

The problem is the Republican Party. Trump is just this year's face - he's disposable, if they can figure out a way to avoid alienating the Republican base. The fact that so far they can't just demonstrates the age old lesson of the sorcerer's apprentice.

 

did you miss my post?

keeping in mind that there is a painful journey involved in getting there.
the point however is about how this speculation/knowledge effects peoples decisions now. (even if denied)

 

You think so? Fine, explain. I use "bipartisan agreement" simply as a word, meaning nothing but "as Republicans as well as Democrats". (Which is what this Fox guy has claimed exists in this particular question. If this guy is lying, explain.)

Of course, there are many Americans who hate both, as libertarians, as right-wing tea-party fans, as on the left. Fine. But what does this change? The US managed democracy is constructed in such a way that what the majority thinks is irrelevant at least for foreign policy. So, the consequence of bipartisan agreement is that there is not even a hope that elections may change this. Bipartisan agreement decides what will be done by America. If there is bipartisan agreement to start a war, there will be a war. Not?

Explain what is, IYO, correct, instead of crying "you are stupid".

 

Okay, okay, okay. Example: So, a conservative think-tank comes up with a policy idea. Republicans decide to run with it. When it's time to bring it in opposition to a Democratic president, they get nineteen Republicans and an occasional party-switcher who happens to be a Democrat at the time to cosponsor the bill shepherded by Sen. Bob Dole. It failed, but Republicans kept pushing it, calling it a bipartisan bill. They celebrated when a Republican governor passed the bill in a largely Democratic state a decade later.

A decade after that, a Democratic president signed the Bill. Republicans blamed Democrats for coming up with the idea, and then they called Bob Dole, a pilot who actually flew against the Nazis, a Nazi.

The word "bipartisan" is a joke.

Rule of thumb: Tucker Carlson is inherently full of shit. He has made a career out of it; if he intended to try a different arc, he probably would have tried by now. As it is, he will call people Nazis for not persecuting minorities.

 

And then you used that misleading excuse to justify labeling specifically Republican Party characteristics and features and policies as "American". All they needed was one Democratic politician's vote - even a Blue Dog or the like - and suddenly it's the whole country they represent? Bipartisan agreement is a couple of Dem votes on a Republican measure?

There was no "bipartisan agreement" involved in anything you were talking about. It didn't even have majority Democratic Party voting support, let alone "agreement".
Electing Al Gore instead of W in 2000 would have kept the US from invading Iraq, almost certainly. Do you agree that would have made a difference?

You get played by that Fox bullshit easier than anyone else on this forum. And then you deny its influence on you.

 

And my point is that it doesn't, in most cases. I don't think the prospect of climate doom has much bearing on whether or not Israel might be behind a false flag event in Syria designed to keep the US embroiled in war there. It's a possibility that has to be considered, regardless of climate change.

 

1. It almost killed its intended targets.
2. They did it before and the consequences were minimal.
3. Yes, they would, as a tool of terror.

Chemical weapons aren't hard to make. And Assad/ Putin are utterly immoral.

 

I was not talking about some abstract "characteristics", but about the actual relation to the question "start a war in Syria or not". It was not about a particular decision, but about what the media talk about. Ok, this Fox guy may be a liar. Feel free to correct his lies, no problem.

Maybe, who knows. This was not the question considered - at that time there have been yet some adequate US diplomats and politicians, so it is completely reasonable to expect that a different choice would have lead to an adequate result for attacking Iraq or not.

I was referring to something actual, the relation to bombing Syria based on a fake gas attack, which is so obviously fake that one cannot even hope that in some future there will appear some proof. With the proof being a video showing a gas bomb peacefully sleeping in a bed without damaging it. Where we seem to have a situation where Trump seems to be the not the most reasonable person (there is no longer any such person) but the only person which is at least confused about attack or not, while all other politicians are sure that one has to attack. Ok, that's an exaggeration (or at least I hope it is).

Of course, the enemy is, in the own propaganda, always utterly immoral. But this is not the only problem of propaganda lies. The other is that the enemy has to be extremely stupid too because the straightforward counterargument against fake attacks is the simple "cui bono" question. Those who do fake attacks are those who get the obvious advantages from doing it, so to plausibly fake a "cui bono", to invent a motive, is the thing which is the really difficult one.

How can this problem be solved? Spidergoat presents the solution. The enemy does not really need any motive, he is doing that evil thing as a "tool of terror". This is somehow in contradiction with how the enemy presents himself? No problem, the enemy is lying anyway. Doing such things would completely destroy his reputation of being a reasonable guy? No problem, in the own propaganda he has no reputation anyway, except the reputation for doing horrible crimes and lying about everything.

Is there any possibility to falsify the (political, but so what, why not apply scientific criteria to political theories too) theory that the enemy is (1) utterly immoral (2) lying about everything (3) rational in realizing his evil interests? This would be easy. Whatever the evil interest, it is usually quite obvious that the fake attack will harm it. In particular, the terror of the evil dictator will not increase at all if he uses chemical weapons. It makes no difference for the victims how they are killed. Use what the US has used in Falludsha, distribute pictures from the Falludsha victims (google them if you don't know what I mean) among the population, add "this will happen to you if you don't give up", ok, this could, with some plausibility, increase the terror. But the international consequences would not exist, simply because all this would be what the US is doing all the time too, thus, quite fine. So, for the purpose of terror using chemical weapons give nothing. So, a rational enemy, however evil, would not do such stupid things.

So, you have to replace the rational enemy by a stupid enemy. A stupid enemy can, in principle, think that somehow adding some chemistry to the bombs will somehow increase the terror, but the US would do nothing. Thus, the next question:

Is there any possibility to falsify the (political, but so what, why not apply scientific criteria to political theories too) theory that the enemy is (1) utterly immoral (2) lying about everything (3) completely stupid?

There is. The problem with this theory is that it cannot be successful. If you lie too much, nobody believes you. And this will be harmful to you. And if you behave in a completely stupid way, you will simply lose. So, the survival of this evil guy is already sufficient to falsify that theory.

Unfortunately, to see the problems with this theory you need some sort of reasoning abilities which are beyond the average. You have to be able to see contradictions in the propaganda. This is the problem of antisemitism. On the one hand, Jews are inferior subhumans. On the other hand, they have exceptional mental abilities to trick and deceive poor non-Jewish victims, to conspire to take power over the whole world and so on. Evidence seems to show that among the antisemites this obvious contradiction does not matter at all.

Similar effects we have here too. Putin is, obviously, quite clever. At least, he has been quite successful - when he became president, Russia was in ruins, full of street kids, mafia rule, and no longer any power at all. Now it is at least a powerful enemy, strong enough to hate him instead of simply ignoring him. Assad has survived a long time a regime change attempt supported by the US, NATO, Saudi Arabia - not really a simple job, even if supported by some "terrorist gang" (Hezbollah) and a few Iranian volunteers. On the other hand, to make the fakes plausible, both have to be completely stupid.

But so what - in propaganda, contradictions do not matter. Instead, they allow covering different parts of the population. For everybody, there will be something in the propaganda which he is ready to believe. One believes that Putin is clever, another one that Putin is unable to understand even very trivial things.

 

There's nothing "abstract" about the Republican Party's behavior and policies here. And they are not the product of "bipartisan agreement" even, much less "America".
Meanwhile, the war in Syria - a direct consequence of the Republican Party's invasion of Iraq and policies toward Iran, touched off by a severe drought apparently exacerbated by global warming - is long started.

He's not a liar, except by coincidence. You have to care about the truth to lie. He doesn't care whether he's lying or not. He's a bullshitter, a propagandist, a player. And you get played by those guys - over and over and over - because you lack a base in reality.

Yes, it was. It was exactly the question considered, by you, in your claims of "bipartisan agreement" and "America".

 

That is not good enough. We have plenty of examples of the survival of evil guys who lied all the time, and were utterly immoral. The catch is that your estimation of their apparent stupidity is in error - they weren't being stupid, when they (for example) denied committing obvious atrocities that anyone could see were their doing. They were demonstrating power, inculcating fear. Winning.

Now I don't know who is staging these gas attacks. I suspect any of the several interests that want the US involvement to continue, first - just a guess. But your argument that it cannot be Assad because they would harm him and that would be stupid is not sound - they don't necessarily harm Assad. They haven't been harming him. If he did stage them, and gets away with them once again, they demonstrate his power and the consequences of opposing him and the futility of his enemies - not stupid at all. Committing obvious horrible crimes in public without being held to account is standard consolidation of power - Basic Dictatorship 101.

 

I wrote "BTW, the point of my link (just to clarify, I was simply following a link, Fox is nothing I would look) was the bipartisan agreement. That's why "America", not "Trump" or "Republicans"." So this was clearly about the actual situation, not about the very different world of 2000.

The important question you have not answered. Is there something wrong with this particular claim made by this guy or not? You seem to think that some ad hominem against that guy and your usual "you are stupid" is sufficient. Sorry, it is not. If he is wrong on this particular point, tell about the facts which he got wrong on this particular link. Better with evidence, say, links to powerful Democratic players arguing against a strike. If you like this guy is not important at all, I do not plan to use him as a source of information, but I followed a link and found that this particular piece was quite interesting.

Up to now, it is yet a low-level war, with the US mainly paying terrorists, and almost no direct fighting of US troops against Syria, even if US troops have already occupied Syrian territory.

In some special circumstances, this may be a reasonable strategy. In general, it is not, and in the particular situation (Assad is fighting against terrorists paid by forces with a much stronger military than his own, and with extremely powerful media resources) it would be extremely stupid.

They have harmed him a lot, there is informational warfare, and this front of war is a quite important one today. And the Western media power is yet strong enough that even such lies harm him a lot.

 

The world of 2000 (more relevantly, 2002) was not very different in this respect. Same America, same Republican Party, same basic "actual" situation - right down to an incompetent loose cannon with sketchy foreign entanglements and flatly evil associates sitting in the White House on the white bigot vote and fucking up everything he touches.
Same Fox TV pushing the same "bipartisan" bs, fooling the same gullible people about the same Republican Party agenda. Granted, they've made progress - - -

It's designed to mislead you - worded and presented and framed to create (more likely: reinforce) in uninformed people a deluded view of the political situation. You were not only slid unwittingly from Republican to "bipartisan", but even suckered into jumping from "bipartisan" to "America" - as if Fox and the Republicans were "America". Do you think that was an accident?

That's what you always say, when you get caught spamming this forum with direct feeds from the Republican Party propaganda mines and their bullshit mountain.
You have been warned many times about your vulnerability to professional US marketing and propaganda operations. You have no defenses - your only hope lies in avoiding them somehow.

He's winning. If he wins, and it turns out he did it, then it won't have been stupid, eh?
Or on the other hand: Almost everything anybody has done in furthering the Syrian war can be accurately labeled "stupid", one way or another. The whole thing is a conglomeration of evil motives, bad ideas, ignorance, and error. Assad is not the only one involved immune to stupidity.

And Trump, of course - look out below.

Y'know, if Trump is finally backed against a wall here for his Russian involvements, Putin's hold on him - depending on what it is - may vanish. You can't blackmail a guy who has nothing to lose. And then his natural belligerence and impulsive reactions, amplified by a cooperative military, will have free reign in Syria.

On the other hand, if Trump is taken down, the current setup seems to suggest Pence is going to be protected despite his entanglements - rather than getting him out first, as with Agnew. And Pence has some ideas about the Middle East you foreigners here might want to check out, before celebrating his appearance of comparative sanity.

 

Jesus f---ing Christ: What in hell is wrong with these people?

 

British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a statement, saying early Saturday in the U.K. that world powers had sought to avoid military action, but Russia had thwarted diplomatic efforts at the United Nations.


“This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change,” Ms. May said. “It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties.”


French President Emmanuel Macron said, “The red line declared by France in May 2017 had been crossed” and also emphasized the narrow goals of the strikes.


“Our response has been limited to the Syrian regime’s facilities enabling the production and employment of chemical weapons,” Mr. Macron said in a statement. “We cannot tolerate the normalization of the employment of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger to the Syrian people and to our collective security.”
​

src: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-u-k-launch-strikes-against-syria-1523668212

​

 

I think your answer means that you have nothing to object, that means that the Democrats (maybe with some unimportant exceptions) also support an aggression in Syria based on this obvious fake. I have asked you for some evidence to the contrary, you have not given anything.

Yes, that's the way I work. If I find something interesting, I follow the links to the original, instead of, say, retranslating translations. Moreover, I do not care about your preference for Democratic lies, American media are all lying anyway. The information which was given appeared accurate, given that you have not provided any evidence to the contrary even after being asked to.

I have a simple method to avoid errors - there are a lot of supporters for the other side here in this forum, they could easily tell me here if the source I have given lies about the facts. Once they restrict themselves to simple ad hominem, the claims appear accurate.
Whatever your problems with the typical use of "bipartisan" and "America", I have explained how I have understood the word - namely simply that both Republicans and Democrats support the same thing. And, given that there was not presented any evidence to the contrary, it looks like, indeed, in this particular question (bombing Syria based on an obvious fake) there is such an agreement. And I have also explained why I switched to America - because, whatever the majority of Americans think about it, it does not matter, the world has to live with what the politicians in Washington do.

But it is clear and obvious, trivial, that all cases when gas attacks have been claimed, this has seriously harmed the actual progress on the ground, lead to a danger of direct US attack.
His success on the large-scale shows he is not completely stupid. Repeating many times the same obviously stupid thing would prove him stupid.

Not really. On the other side, there are democratic politicians, which are in general known to be corrupt liars (what would be classified as "corruption" in Russia is named "lobbying" and completely legal), and one has to distinguish the interests of the US as a nation (then, all that they do would be stupid) from their personal interests. And then the political decisions in furthering the Syrian war do not look that stupid.

 

Schmelzer,
If you believe that the recent chemical attack in Syria ( not UK ) was and obvious fake then you must also think that the USA, Britain and France have launched their retaliation in Syria knowing that it was an obvious fake.
Can I ask then why do you think the coalition of three knowingly launched their missiles, planes etc in response to, by your reckoning, an obviously fake attack?