The Trump Presidency

Full agreement. Times of falling empires are very dangerous times. In general, there are two dangers during such times: The empire trying to preserve itself in a last war, and the power vacuum behind it, which may lead to wars for deleting the remains of the empire between the newcomers.

Fortunately, the "newcomers" in our particular case are, in the case of Russia and China, quite old empires themselves with established traditions which are highly valued in these countries, both not interested in fighting wars for new territories because they have enough territory. And the new form of war - regime change with color revolutions - is only an American tool. Thus, if the US stops this, the newcomers will not use this too.

Moreover, the US empire has been less invasive than classical colonial powers. The vassals had formal independence, have managed their states in many aspects themselves, thus, the resulting power vacuum if they remove completely will not be as problematic. There is a functioning local government in every part splitting away from the empire. Most of them are democracies, so that the people have some chance to get rid of former US puppets left in power in a peaceful way.

Therefore I'm not really afraid of the "power vacuum" problem. My greatest fear is a final war started by the US to save the empire.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice article about what changes with Mattis' exit: https://indianpunchline.com/why-mattis-exit-is-a-defining-moment-in-us-foreign-policy/
Bhadrakumar describes the role of Mattis as part of the swamp.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So how is nuclear nonproliferation going to be managed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nuclear weapons are already proliferated, we have 8 states with nuclear weapons and there will be more in some future, I see no way to prevent this. All I see as a possibility is that a return to international law (with sovereignty of states) decreases the necessity to have nuclear weapons.

 

Both of them have recently annexed territory by military force, both of them are currently expanding the range of their military influence and control.

Nuclear proliferation has been - in the recent past - slowed and even reversed by political means. It's dangerous. Abandoning those political restrictions and curbs incurs large risk.
That is something you used to emphasize.

He was. That's why Obama rejected him.

You should have thought of that before you got on the Trump bandwagon. He doesn't even need the "save the empire" excuse.

Nonsense. The Soviets, Putin, China, nowdays - the fascist regimes back a while - before them the colonial powers in general - nothing new about abetting the disaffected or ambitious to undermine an enemy regime from within.

Is that what you expect from Republican America's chaotic flailing? China's military expansion? Putin's seizure of footholds in the oil fields? Oh, child - - - -

 

That you interpret Crimea as annexation I know, but what do you have in mind about China? Those small rocks in the sea?

There are more dangerous things actually.

I have not yet seen any evidence for Trump being more dangerous than Clinton. I have not heard any "Clinton would have already removed all troops from Syria and Afghanistan".

Of course, there is nothing completely new in politics. But actually, essentially during the whole period of unipolar rule, regime change is mainly a US job.

Of course, not. I expect this only in the long term. After the globalists would have really given up, and US is ruled by a stable isolationist government so that one reliably count US isolationism as a constant independent of election results.

 

and human beings are not bound by their natures.
... dream on!

 

As noted, many times: you can't see fascism.

And the thousands of square miles of mineral rich ocean around them. Among others. But I was noting Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

By definition.
Now we are going to have multipolar rule, you said - back to what led to World War, then.

So the Republican Party destroyed, including Trump removed from office, then.

 

"You haven't gotten [a raise] in more than ten years. More than ten years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one...I said no, make it ten percent. Make it more than ten percent. Because it's been a long time...So congratulations."
-- Trump, in Iraq, speaking to troops about military pay, which has increased every year except one for 30 years, and which is going up by 2.6%, the largest increase in nine years

 

What are they "currently expanding" in Tibet resp. Taiwan? These were issues of long ago history some 70 years or so ago.

The world war started before there was MAD.

As well as the Democratic Party destroyed. Or one of them taken over by some different deep state faction with isolationist philosophy.

Globalists will, of course, never give up to dream about world power. But they may have other, more important things to do before they may start again to realize their dream or wold power.

 

You should probably take the time, now and again, to make sense.

The problem is that you're being too dualistic, and according to mythopoeic poles. Non sequitur, as such, might be orderly if lined up just so, but it's still fallacious.

To wit, of course you "have not yet seen any evidence for Trump being more dangerous than Clinton"; we're already aware you would fail to see the sun were it named Hillary Clinton.

It's like after Desert Storn, when Gen. H. N. Schwarzkopf admitted he screwed up the end of the war; Stormin' Norman blamed the politicians, of course, and acknowledged that he rushed and didn't think a particular point through, but the thing is that error would not have been so damaging except for what it led to being, if not part of the design, just fine with President George H. W. Bush. You couldn't ask for a better setup; we went to war over this, but in the end, having called on the Shia to stand up, we apparently accidentally just happened to empower the alleged villain we just went to war against, and then just happened to look away.

Twelve years later, we quietly apologized↱, though as near as anyone could tell it was only because we really needed them to help once we invaded again, this time for oil and Bush family honor. Fifteen years after↱, we were still trying to find all the mass graves. At a quarter-ceuntury↱ out, neoconservatives still struggled with finding someone to blame for what happened to the Shia and Kurds after Desert Storm.

Meanwhile, it is quite easy to forget all this, given the amount people talk about Bill Clinton's role, which was to bomb the hell out of Iraq according to the quasi-statutory and often purely political catastrophes created by his predecessor. Also easy to forget in the warring danger comparison is that President Clinton rejected a neoconservative National Security Strategy, devised by neoconservative longtime insiders°, that called for triggering a domino-effect series of wars in the Middle East. It would be President George W. Bush who would haul out the Wolfowitz Doctrine and burnish it with his own imprimatur.

Beyond that, the, "I have not heard any 'Clinton would have already removed all troops from Syria and Afghanistan'", line is absurd for wondering why you would. Non sequitur is non sequitur, and a straw man is a straw man, but that latter really increased the chances of the former. That sort of fallacy is better than two female interns and a panda suit, but, still, it's pretty fallic. Fellatious. I mean, fellatious. Damn it, fallacious. It's fallacious.

(ahem!)​

Were Hillary Clinton president, it's likely we would be wading through a vociferous societal argument about whether Surging troops is a viable consideration in Syria even as we undertake it. Compare this to what happened under Trump, a Surge that accomplished nothing but getting ambushed by Russians. Well, okay, as we hear it even from the Russians, the Americans kicked the hired hands' asses; for many Americans, however, the macho thrill of boasting rights is a stupid and disdained custom, such that we aren't impressed by would-be he-men playing willy games with death tolls.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton likely would not have followed Trump's course of empowering SecDef to lighten the rules of engagement while deeper entrenching American forces in Afghanistan. We might further note that beyond your immediate range of critique in the range where American and Russian interests overlap, Trump's rules of engagement for domestic deployment targeting Hispanics along the nation's southern border would imitate Israeli infamy°°, an extraordinary danger outside the expected range of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency. And while the mundane human rights offenses the U.S. commits on a regular basis do in fact require discussion, reconciliation, and correction, the President Clinton who is not would not have established an internment camp for children at Tornillo, nor authorized unqualified persons to medically experiment on interned children at other facilities.

The reason you "have not yet seen any evidence for Trump being more dangerous than Clinton" is akin to its American article of blind faith, that no matter how awful Donald Trump may be, Hillary Clinton would have done worse. Seriously, here in the U.S., they even try to do it with Donald Trump and his cadre of fellow sex offenders; no other wife will ever answer for her husband the way a politically influential wife on the allegedly liberal side of our society's divide is expected to. Everyone fails the standard Americans demand of Hillary Clinton, which is why nobody else is ever expected to answer it°°°.

There is a sentimental argument many find accessible, that in running away with the job unfinished, we devalue the human sacrifices demanded by our actions. In addition to the five service members we've given, we have taken over 3,700 civilian lives; military partners in the effort have paid dearly; some who really needed us to show up are betrayed by a precipitious withdrawal.

Which also points to what we might normally call diplomacy, and while much depends on one's definition of danger or prejudices about Hillary Clinton, we can easily say her State Department would not have made a point of empowering Kim Jong-Un, nor kowtowed so anxiously, or at all. She would not be taking her foreign policy advice from foreign governments anxious to disrupt American influence and prestige; nor would a Clinton presidency so eagerly lackey up to the crimes of international strongmen.

A hundred years later there will be those who will say the hazardous presidency of Donald Trump wan't really so bad because Hillary Clinton would have been worse. No, really, if the Supreme Court ever reverses Roe, people will say Hillary would have had Justices killed in order to stack the court to overturn Roe even faster and harder. Raise her up on a pedestal, hate her for being deified; sounds about like how we treat Woman in these United States, anyway, which in turn ain't really so different from anywhere else.

The stupidest thing about it all, though, is that your complaint, compared to reality, is so damnably absurd as to make its own point. Eventually, the Temple of Hillary, in which the cultists need her in order to hate her as a means of self-justification, reminds that, sure, she is a symbol of a deeply imperfect system, but that wasn't really the problem.

One of the most apparent failures of the present counterrevolution, and seemingly on proverbial both sides of a meaningless aisle, is its reinforcement of what it purports to reject. It's not quite total, but virtually all the identifying leftists in my circles are backing unrest quite literally for the fuck-shit-up fact of uprising; there's no point in raising certain questions with them, because in the end they could still end up being correct, but when they're wrong, well, this time around they left a record, so it will be possible to ask what was up, and they won't be able to say they don't remember what anyone is talking about. And if certain elements do prove as antisocial as they sound, it will be harder for those associates to blame everyone else.

On the American scene, remember, while it wasn't really about supremacism, according to Trump's supporters, even though they really appreciated how he said what he wanted to say, the real problem was the warmongering, corrupt, dynastic elitism of Hillary Clinton ... which was why they backed Donald Trump.

This is why many aren't believed: When their revolution only accomplishes what they pretend to argue against, it does stand out.

Kind of like your anti-Americanism. Look, there's plenty awry about these United States; you're better served attending reality. Making believe is one of those really clear signals.
____________________

Notes:

° Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were both around the Beltway since Nixon; they met nearly fifty years ago, studying under Strauss, Wohlstetter, Nitze and Acheson.

°° Indeed, the amount of this that reads like conservatives waxing romantic for the 1980s is very nearly scary.

°°° Can you imagine conservative Christine O'Donnell, who ran for U.S. Senate in 2010, answering the Elizabeth Warren standard at any point in the latter's tenure? How about former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN06), who actually won, and destroyed by doing so, the Ames Straw Poll? Which one would conservatives mock with an intern in a panda costume for lesbian furry porn? Oh, never mind, that would be the Minnesota Moonbat; O'Donnell, for her part, was already submissive unto her husband, but only after Jesus. And, well, (sigh), it is axiomatic, i.e., Rule #34, the zealot getting double-ended by Jesus and a tubby queer scene already exists, though it inevitably existed well before Lady Belfry found her light bulb.​

Argano, Tim. "A Long-Awaited Apology for Shiites, but the Wounds Run Deep". The New York Times. 8 November 2011. NYTimes.com. 30 December 2018. https://nyti.ms/2s3fDLm

Burns, John F. "Uncovering Iraq's Horrors in Desert Graves". The New York Times. 5 June 2006. NYTimes.com. 30 December 2018. https://nyti.ms/2St7rQe

Zenko, Micah. "Who Is to Blame for the Doomed Iraqi Uprisings of 1991?" The National Interest. 7 March 2016. NationalInterest.org. 30 December 2018. http://bit.ly/2Rn4xPT

 

You hadn't heard?
The list of things you haven't seen or heard of is very long. The odd thing is what happens when you do hear of them, say on this forum - you still haven't heard of them.
The list of countries that have expanded by military force, geographically, since WWII sobered the wealthy for a while, is quite short: Russia, China, Israel - - - -

Lucky us. Imagine if the fascist multipoles then had had nukes.

It is a normal Party, capable of governing. No need to destroy it.

Now the deep state has grown multiple factions, and some have isolationist "philosophies".
Would they still be "deep", if they took over political Parties?
Have you identified any of this deep state of yours, yet? Just curious - your various postulated versions do not overlap very much, except in the boardrooms of a few capitalistic corporations.

The Trump presidency is in conflict with the deep State, in your world, iirc. So the Republican Party is outside the deep State. That leaves the Democrats as your hope for the future, apparently.

 

Yes. And your long whining about how stupid I'm not hearing does not contain, as usual, a link to something I should have heard.

A nice trick to forget Kosovo. Formally, it is simply a new independent state, in reality, it is a big US base with some criminal gangs ruling the environment of the base.

If they would have been the only ones with nukes, that would be really bad. But with other states having MAD power too, there would have been no war.

If one likes globalists politics, with regime change operations all over the world, then, ok, it may be normal. If one wants a civilized US, certainly not.

Yes. Deep is not necessarily something completely hidden or secret. It is simply not the constitutional, official power.

I do not have a very detailed theory about the deep state. It would be stupid to believe there is none, given the actual situation with Trump being unable to do what he could do if everything would be like prescribed in the constitution. The players in the deep state are known, they include those in power in the formal, constitutional order too, but also many other powerful forces like secret services, think tanks, big corporations, parties.

Complete nonsense. I have always said that there is a split in the deep state today, which may have existed even earlier, but became obvious only with Trump. That there is some faction of the deep state behind Trump - because else a simple car accident would have finished the problem with Trump. And, of course, both parties are inside part of the deep state. It looks like the faction behind Trump is yet the minority. But I do not participate in speculations which parts of the deep state support Trump and which support globalists. To make reasonable decisions about such questions one would need insider information which I have no access to. So, what I think about the deep state is necessarily only a very rough, general picture, without much detail.

 

Living and learning about fascism - the form of government that never makes mistakes, in Schmelzer World.
- - - -

Again with the (preemptively described as a "whine") "stupid" whine - it's the classic American wingnut's response to being corrected on errors and idiocies they have parroted from the usual agitprop sources.

You don't know anything about it, is the problem.

Unless it is, as in half your claims of "deep State" doings. You don't know what the Constitutional, official, US powers are.
You also have the problem of being blind to fascism - private capitalist corporate power - which means you can't see most of the workings of what an informed person might call the US "deep State".

Not by you.

Imagining you are seeing "splits" in what you can't see in the first place is just being silly.

Nothing about US governance became obvious with Trump that wasn't already obvious. Trump is a Republican President, right down the Party line, as far as policy and the behavior of the State is concerned. There's been no change in trend or direction, just more and worse Reagan/Bush/W executive branch governance. The turmoil comes from the utter corruption and consequent incompetence of fascistic governance, which Trump exemplifies.

? Joke?
You clearly have no idea what Trump - or any US President - is and is not Constitutionally able and required to do.
And you have no idea what Trump would like to do (for starters: he has no interest in the welfare of anyone except himself, and no interest in governing the US or improving the US in any way). You babble on about "isolationism" and so forth, and Trump is just scamming and pillaging.

You have a con man become fascist demagogue in front of you, and you can't see him. He's in your blind spot. And you are not alone in this handicap.

If it were just a few Europutin fanboy "anarchists" who had a blind spot for the US Republican Party, no problem. But it isn't. It's a third of the US electorate. It's everyone getting their information and framing from the wingnut media and "think tanks" backing US fascism. It's the single most significant political force in the country with the world's most powerful military.

 

For those wondering how far back it was that Trump's reputation for narcissistic fuckup became general public knowledge:
https://mikethemadbiologist.com/201...narcissist-and-what-that-means-for-il-trumpe/

That was from page 142 of the 2007 edition of a book published in 1992.

 

And another one from the blogs: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/fb...tory-afghanistan-invasion-former-intel-chief/

 

The problem is more that you write long posts which do not contain any information at all beyond various repetitions of "you are stupid". Which is worthless for everybody.

 

If you would pay attention to the areas of ignorance I point out - which you can verify for yourself, by introspection -
-and then learn to treat with suspicion the sources who have played on that ignorance to sell you on the bullshit I have helpfully marked out for you - (most recently, Trump's Constitutional powers and proper actions being curbed by a "deep State") -
you might find more worth than you bargain for.
Meanwhile: If you ever discover what a fool you've been played for, by the US marketing pros, you can't say you weren't warned.

 

The problem is more that you write long posts which do not contain any information at all beyond various repetitions of "you are stupid". Which is worthless for everybody.

 

the height of the Genghis khan empire
the height of the slave trade
the height of Nazi power across Europe
Mao
Stalin
tens of millions deliberately starved to death by those in power.
millions of their own people, friends, neighbors, children, entire familys... executed on a whim
was the empire about to crumble ? most would say no it wasn't....

soo...what are you really saying ?