The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Let's put everything on hold awhile. That'll teach everyone not to mess with hear me?

    Another tid-bit of some informational value;
    Let's deprive the food inspectors of food.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Things were bad before. Why not make them worse. Makes no difference, no?
    Maybe things will get better. How's that for logic?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Confusing corporatist economic order with fascism, and then thinking the New Deal introduced corporatist economic order to America, is your idiocy, not mine.
    Actually, it's probably not yours. Like all your posting on US politics, it's too coincident with the US rightwing authoritarian media feeds to be your invention - guys like Goldberg, whom I know you suckered for.
    And not only US politics:
    Wingnut bingo - we have a winner.
    Nonsense. It was exactly the stuff you declare to be bad, including the rejection of sound policy toward post-collapse Russia along with regime change and warmongering as US foreign policy. And it was far more significant than its later derivative and auxiliary manifestations, such as the Kosovo War - which Clinton got dragged into, btw, while being impeached by the Republican Congress.
    Reagan and Bush closed it.

    Yeah, it is. Too much work, when the only info that gets through is what you find for yourself. And it highlights your refusal to do that, which I find entertaining.
    Look at this:
    I've been watching you stumble around blind to fascism for a while, but you can still startle me.
    There isn't much fascist stupidity that Russia is avoiding - possibly the whackjob strongman shouting long speeches. Russia is pretty much fascist, on the standard cards - government by organized crime.
    It's a simple statement of fact. I am glad you regard is as a criticism - there is hope for you.
    That's not libertarian. A libertarian values and maximizes personal liberty. Minimum government does not maximize personal liberty. For example, 2/3 of the citizens of the US have less liberty - in the form of Constitutional limits on law enforcement, freedom from authoritarian coercion - than they did before Trump and than they did before the shutdown.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Or doing a little honest research of your own.
    You just did. I quoted you. And you have before - it's what you do instead of acquiring information about climate change.
    You don't extract information, and you don't reject the propagandistic aims. You get played, instead.
    The Aswan Dam does not handle volatility of rainfall either.
    The predicted likely AGW effects on rainfall in agricultural regions worldwide cannot be handled by dams.
    Even when the topic is agriculture. You make lots of mistakes like that. It's because you don't know what you are talking about.

    And all of this silliness about climate change from you is familiar. It's the same stuff that elected W, that elected Trump, that elected various Republican Congress, that ran the committees and doled out the science funding and plugged up the news bandwidth with "both sides" discussions. It has a source, and that source is the central factor, the main feature, of the Trump Presidency.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I do not confuse them, I name corporatism the economic system of fascism. It may be, of course, also the economic system of other things, like democracy or so. There were, of course, a lot of corporatist elements in the US already before the New Deal, but the New Deal was certainly a heavy boost.
    I do not claim priority, so what? Goldberg is certainly a much better source than you, given that he supports his claims with a lot of quotes and references. So, what he claims is something worth to think about, different from your claims.
    Of course, it was and is bad, but it was not what closed the "window of opportunity" of good relations with Russia. During that time it was mostly ignored by Russians. They even liked the US at that time.
    poor Clinton

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You know nothing about Russia - you are played by the anti-Russian Western propaganda. (Let's see what I can learn from you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How are Trump's policies related to what is libertarian? Trump is certainly not a libertarian, thus, his behavior and its consequences are irrelevant for this. I know some left-libertarians like a lot of government and high taxes to distribute the money to everybody. But I do not name such guys libertarian.

    I have checked. The result is that what I have named "horror fantasies" was a quote from you, and not some quote from some "calm, conservative, research and analysis backed predictions of the best informed people on the planet". You may, of course, think about yourself in such terms, but you have to live with the fact that I don't think you can be characterized in this way.
    It does. This is what dams do. Very volatile inflows from upstream can be transformed into a constant flow downstream.
    Some of them can. Some of them can be handled by other measures, like switching to other crops. It depends on the particular effects in the particular regions. A few, like no rain at all, cannot be handled. But they are quite improbable, local exceptions.
    Yes. I side with Russia only because the multipolar world is much less evil than the unipolar world. A unique world government would be the greatest horror scenario for me. A multipolar world gives me already much more freedom of choice between the territories controlled by different criminal gangs. I can find one which is the least evil one, given my personal interests (even if it is, for other people, very evil).
    Does not really make sense. And anarchism does not reject hierarchies based on voluntary acceptance of the leaders. It objects against hierarchies enforced by military power.
    In this form, there would be no logic. But it has not much to do with my position.
    For what matters for me, there is no evidence for Trump being in any sense worse than Clinton. I have always said that I prefer Trump only as less evil than Clinton.
    If Trump is in some domestic policy questions worse than Clinton or not is nothing I care about. That is your problem, not my problem. That Trump, doing foreign policy in stupid ways, weakens the US influence and soft power in the world is something you will possibly not like, but I like it. This is because I think the US influence around the world creates much more harm than good.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps it is more likely he is being played by the serious lack of anti-Russian RUSSIAN media. But of course all Russians are bissfully content with their lack of freedom of speech and the threat of imprisonment, torture and or execution if they have cause to be critical of Russian governance.

    How long do you think a Russian version of the Washington Post or the New York Times would last in Russia before Putin Nuked them?
    (Be careful with your response, the FSB are watching.)
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Cite me one evil thing Clinton did as president.

    I'll cite you one good thing Clinton did. He raised taxes on the rich and raised wages for the poor.
    The end result of this distribution of wealth was a huge economic and social success.

    Please don't bother me with Lewinski.

    Clinton had an obligation to support NATO. You think he wanted to kill a lot of people or didn't care??

    Please don't slander one of the US great modern presidents.

    Why don't you google the "halliburton loophole"

    And finally; what about Trump, who just grounded the military air transport of the House Speaker who is second in line to the presidency and is legally entitled to secured military transport.

    Now, that's evil.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I understand your honest position, but I'm afraid I have a different world view. I believe in a symbiotic, rather than a competitive human relationship as a worthy human ideal to strive for.

    You believe in "survival of the fittest", pure Darwinian evolution and natural selection. The strong rule.
    That's a little too primitive for me.

    We are the only known species able to functionally affect the evolution of the human species.
    We can create the world we live in. My hope is for peace and goodwill to all mankind and respect for the implacable natural processes of the earth.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    There is no such lack. If iceaura thinks there is one, he is played by the Western propaganda, like you.
    And that's why you find a lot of anti-Russian, anti-Putin, and anti-government comments everywhere in the runet. Russians use free speech even without caring about government permissions, been there in communist times, read a lot of underground literature I have received from other students, and we joked all the time about Breshnev. This was in times when it was really dangerous and illegal. Today free speech is completely legal and there is not even a danger.
    One already lives since 1990 another one since 1989
    I had in mind Hillary, but no problem, for Bill there is the Kosovo war. He bombed Belgrad.

    Given that this started the turn of the Russians against the US, all the evil the Russians are doing now against the US, inclusive electing Trump (lol), can be understood as a side effect of this. (Ok, the presidents after Clinton could have changed a lot of what he did wrong in relation to Russia, preventing the actual situation. They did not.)
    There was no such obligation. No NATO member has been attacked by Serbia, thus, no obligation at all was following from the US membership in NATO. If he murdered a lot of people just for fun or for some interests is nothing I care much about.
    Sorry, I couldn't care less.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, that figures.
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    So far no difference.
    No. I believe in voluntary cooperation. This certainly works in small communities (of the size of hoards - because living in hoards was the base of development of our genes). And it works also between small communities if one accepts simple rules of territorial sovereignty and that one has to hold contracts.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What crime did Hillary Clinton commit? To what end? Can you prove it?
    As I observed, a little too primitive for me. It's more complicated than that.

    The days of Middle Earth are long gone.
    Today we have "Global Warming" and "Climate Change", keyword; Global
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Terrorist wars in Libya and Syria.
    Contract holding in the age of information revolution is a simple thing. All you need is a reputational system so that established contract violations will be visible to everyone. Then you can violate contracts only once. With contract holding being sufficiently safe, there is no problem with the organization of a big modern society.

    There is also no problem with organizing infrastructure in a modern libertarian society. See
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    To what end? Do you have proof of a crime? Or is this just slander?
    Who establishes that reputational (reputable?) system? Wiki Leaks?
    How do you know it is sufficiently safe? Deutsche Bank holding your contract? And how do you enforce this if it is not?
    What society are you talking about? Everywhere on earth?

    Who establishes and enforces the agreed upon behaviors. You're talking feudalism...
    primitive in an age of information sharing....forget such thing....globally.

    What happened to small independent hordes with a big fence around their "borders".
    Oh, I see, Trump is building his wall to make us independent, OK.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    4,179 A military operation, which bombed Libya instead of simply creating a no-fly zone, to quote the source "Around this time, the U.S. changed its target priorities from air defenses to Libyan ground forces." To enforce a no-fly zone there is no need at all to bomb ground forces. Thus, a clear violation of what the UNSC has allowed, thus, an illegitimate act of war. explicit support of a terrorist gang by the US even after it became clear that they had headcutted a small boy. Ok, that was Obama time, but all this terrorist support started during the time Hillary Clinton was in her job. The US support for various terrorist gangs in Syria started in 2011.
    No need to enforce.

    You make a contract. If you don't want to cheat from the start, you can agree about some arbiter at the time of signing the contract. If a problem appears, the arbiter makes a decision on how to proceed. If you do not accept this arbitrage, you are a contract breaker and the arbiter writes an entry about this into a global open blacklist of contract breakers. Whenever you want to sign a contract after this, the other side will look if you have a record in the blacklist and decide after this if it is worth to sign a contract with you. Given this natural consequence, you will think twice breaking the contract. Once such a system exists, every person not interested to break the contract itself will insist to use it, simply for the own security.

    All one needs for this is a format so that entries cannot be created as defamation out of thin air. Thus, there should be the contract itself, with your electronic signature, the acceptance of the arbiter, with your signature, and the decision of the arbiter, with his electronic signature. Everything else is freedom of contract. You decide if you want to sign a contract or not.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You should follow your own words in regards to defamation. You could not live in such a society. You're not honest and you post slander on the global information network.....way to go!!!

    I would censor you.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    us domestic survivalist economy is big money
    it buys guns, food, building materials & keeps spending ongoing wage & salary incomes on the products.
    it has its own culture
    information networks
    and technology
    it is almost a country within a country as an economy inside an economy

    when you start talking civil war rather than "the end is nigh"... it leaves a big question to the nature of what the warring parties are.

    when you remain on subject and seek to have that specific question answered, you are left with quite a large silence and foot shuffling noises, coughs & people trying to change the subject while throwing their hands up in the air and claiming victim status to the discussion.

    meanwhile the ethereal narrative of race-wars is mentioned under breath.

    if its not science, its not science

    so i ask you what is your scientific point/meaning in saying this ?

    i have read this comment as a throw-away-comment by many people over the years.
    it is usually used by people who lack the ability to discus cultural-sociology & anthropology or parrots of propaganda(you dont seem like either so im asking).
    bill goldberg ?

    who is goldberg ?
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    If they let you in....through the wall.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I don't want to go to US, so I don't care about the walls around the US. There are countries around the Earth which are sufficiently happy with me to let me in. Of course, in exchange for visa payments...

    It is information about what I have read - some results of a poll about the question "do you think there will be a civil war during the next five years" or so with a "yes" with dubiously high numbers. I don't remember the percentage. but it was with two digits. Original source essentially unknown. That's all. That I have mentioned it at all, given the dubious source, was simply motivated by the context of the discussion (existential internal threat). Sort of "even if the source is dubious, there exists claims that there really may be existential threats actually in the US".

Share This Page