The Trump Presidency

This is what I have expected, given the situation, namely, Mueller fighting Trump with the usual means in this "three felonies a day" country. A standard method which I have predicted that it will be used was testimony under oath, and this gives if done long enough and then evaluated carefully enough, at least some minor errors, which is already a crime.

We have, of course, Manafort. Once he had some connections with some Ukrainian oligarchs, it was also clear that one can find there some crimes if one tries a little bit.

Why should I care?

Your nation is run by gangsters anyway. The only question is which gangster ruling the US is the least dangerous for the other parts of the world.

I don't think so. The US is highly corrupt in its military-industrial complex, and that means that additional billions will be lost. But this weakens the US in other questions. Russia has reacted asymmetrically and will continue to do this in future too. So, it evaluates what it needs for its own security, which is, mainly, second-strike ability, and, after this, measures against low-level escalation possibilities.

I agree that Trump may hope for Russia going bankrupt in an arms race, but Russia has learned the lecture too.

By continuing what they have done through the last 20 years. See, the US, to gain first strike ability, needs to become able to build a defense against the hypersound missiles already developed now. Hard job. Will they succeed at all?

Beyond the usual "you are stupid" crap, the only point interesting to answer was the following:

Correct. And that's why Putin made a lot of public announcements about the weapons now available to the Russian army, for retaliation if necessary.

Moreover, don't forget about the attacks made by Trump against Syria. There were well-defined statements, in the open as well as in much more detail in the secret communication channels, what would follow if some Russians would be attacked. Trump has followed these prescriptions, and nothing happened. So, only the level of explicit open statements which have clarified that there will be a serious retaliation if an attack follows, Putin has already done everything which you name "robotic and irresponsible".

When they have endangered Russia, Russia has reacted. Now throwing away even more money in that failure is not dangerous. At least not in the near future.

And if the US throws away a lot of money for nothing, this is good news for the world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

assuming that the Russian missile project is actually real and not fiction thrown up by Putin's media machine a budget of 60 odd billion R & D dollars(*) would no doubt yield a suitable defense....probably from orbit rendering the Russian missiles useless....
what then?
* Based on the assumption of about 10% of budget would go to R & D ( or more ) if an arms race actually gained momentum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What then? Russia's defense budget was on the same 10% level all the time, but in 2000 nobody cared about Russia at all and now there is no serious doubt that they have reached an equal power where it matters. To change this, more of the same from US side would not change the game.

Moreover, the whole world hopes that AOC gets power in the US, with socialism in the US destroying it completely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

10% of a small budget does not make a super power....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The situation as I see it is that there needs to be maintained an ability for a retaliatory strike for detente to be effective. Once the USA develops the capacity to neutralize Russia's first strike capacity it also develops by default the same neutralization of the retaliatory strike.

The same applies for Russia of course.

The first one with an effective ICBM defense system wins..... I guess.
Which is all really silly because there are other ways to deliver WMD's besides ICBMs

In other words the whole thing is a bloody waste of time and resources...for every one... except it will drive Russia bankrupt in the process.

 

That increases the probability of Russia making a mistake, as well as the US.

?
I named your fantasies of Hillary vs Putin - not his (or her) actual behavior - robotic and irresponsible. It was amusing to see you carry your science fiction take on geopolitics that far.

You never see fascism coming, of course.
The interesting wrinkle here is your inability to recognize the role of error, chance, and incompetence (always major factors in the disaster of fascist governance). You have Putin making no serious mistakes, and Trump's serious mistakes having no effect.
The bad war will not be launched on purpose. The exact situation you repeatedly claimed to fear above others - a buildup to nuclear war involving Russia and the US - is coming to pass right in front of you, because of Trump.

 

It is 10% of the US budget, thus, of a big budget. And that this is sufficient to become a superpower is what Russia has shown.

Of course, it is quite strange that this is possible - what is necessary to make such things possible is a large amount of corruption in the US.

No, it never even tried to gain the ability to neutralize the first strike, this would be impossible. The only point of the whole program was the hope to prevent a retaliatory strike.

Nobody will gain it. Hitting is easier than defending.

No, because (or as long as) Russia reacts asymmetrically.

The Russians care about having clear communications between the military, so that there will be reasonable guys who understand the messages on both sides, instead of politicians who may aim to play chicken games.

Why do you think so? I have not objected to your claims about this possibility, thus, I see no reason to object. This possibility exists, and it increases in a Cold War situation. Which is what Trump had promised to stop, but was not allowed to. Instead, Hillary even promised to make the Cold War against Russia more serious. Which would increase also the probability of an accidental start of a hot war.

As a rough summary, fine.

 

You think Trump made conscious and intentional promises to "stop" the "Cold War"? That Trump had an ideologically based governing agenda upon which to base his military policy, which he was prevented from enacting? I think you are serious. You aren't joking. You actually believe that.

Living and learning about fascism. If you can.

btw: Trump's first acts in office - the very first things he did or attempted - were to boost the role of the US military in foreign affairs (especially drone killings, airstrikes, and bombings) and increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons deployment. Two years in, every likely scene of nuclear error and disaster is more likely than it was, and new ones are being created, due to Trump's behavior.

Because you keep posting things like this:

That's very commendable. I'm sure they will do their best.
So your little imagined scene of chicken-playing Putin launching a nuclear war over a Syrian no-fly zone was just you being silly again.
Russians make mistakes, just like everybody else. Currently, Russia is setting out to build up its nuclear arsenal again - including further and extended deployment of nuclear weapons into war zones and areas of military tension where the US is also present. That's what you didn't want, remember?

 

He made some quite open claims during the election campaign in favor of better relations with Russia. Given that this was a very serious move away from what was expected from a Republican candidate, one can be sure that it was not accidental bs out of nothing, but a well-thought decision. That he was prevented from enacting these ideas is obvious given the results of the last two years. If he has seriously tried to follow it or not, if this was his own idea or of some other people in his team, is nothing I have information about, and I do not even really care.

No. In the case of a no-fly zone, there would have been the same very precise information to the US military what would follow if a Russian plane will be shot. This would have certainly not been the start of a nuclear war, but a retaliatory strike against the particular entity which would have started the attack.

You miss a thing here. I care more about the short term danger. As long as Trump does things which, in principle, increase the danger of war in, say, 6 years or so, this is not that dangerous as a Hillary which would have created that no fly zone 2016. Why? This is not about ignorance of long term effects, but about the extremely high danger now, when the US is yet very strong militarily, has yet an empire to defend, and may start a war out of insanity, in the hope to preserve their world rule.

Trump has not presented himself during these two years as the guy who will start WW III. So, Trump has given the world 4 years without this danger. Maybe even 8? That would be fine. During this time, a lot of things can change. A lot of things have already changed. Some of the new Russian weapons are now ready to fight, more will be, thus, even a Hillary would be more deterred to attack Russia. China is growing, all the world shifts away from the Petrodollar, in Munich a split between EU and US became much more visible. And we have yet two years for the next big economic crash to come. It will hurt the US more than the rest of the world (even if it will hurt everybody). What remains from the financial power of the US after this is unclear. There is at least a chance that they will cut a lot of the military budget simply because they do no longer have the money to pay for it. In other words, the time of transition from US-ruled unipolar world to the multipolar one is very dangerous, and every year of peace during this transition is worth a lot.

 

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of State of the US can give military orders for no-fly zones? Are you crazy?? The Secretary of State is a diplomat without power to wage war.

Your hate for one of the great Secretaries of State in history is so deep you have lost complete control of any semblance of reason. You believe that Trump's foreign policy has not started a war yet? Really? You believe having "good" relations with bad people is going to end well?

It is these false accusations which completely destroy any possibility of a rational discussion. The FBI, CIA, Military, Congress and Senate are all part of this corrupt deep state that has operated for many years and Trump is the only straight shooter in gvernment?
Are you crazy?

Open your eyes and look at the history of current occupant of the WH. And you dare compare that individual to Hillary Clinton and her place in history of the US?

Who do you think needs to be locked up? The Secretary of State who served with distinction or Trump, who's entire cabal is facing jail time in the short span of two years.

But Trump is "innocent" of any wrong doing! In fact he is the "greatest" president since Lincoln and it's even debatable who is the greatest! His wall will be paid for by Mexico, if the US tax payers can come up with the money from other urgent and scheduled expenditures! Really? Oh, I have to believe all that because Trump said so himself?
This is kind of logic is so far removed from reality, "it isn't even wrong".

Please, get a grip on reality. Russia and No. Korea are brutal dictatorships. You don't want these people as your friends, unless you are prepared to live under such a government.

 

Right, you don't really care at all. You just want to sow chaos and discord. You are a seditionist against the US. And I do care about that.

 

Learn to read - of course, not. I have considered what she would have done if she would have become president. And this was simply repeating what she has proposed herself.

In fact, I hate her not more than all the other warmongers who have already murdered many people. Nothing special, I simply hate warmongers and murderers.

Not yet. We are actually close to one being started by Trump, against Venezuela. We will see.

I believe foreign policy should care about the interests of the people, not about propaganda fantasies who is good and bad. Peaceful relations with bad people, say, Kim or Trump, are better than war. This does not mean that one should never do things which could lead to a war - deterrence is necessary, and sometimes precise descriptions what will follow if some aggressor starts something - which can include military actions which can lead to a war, are a necessary part of deterrence. Such is life. But simply starting wars because one does not like the rulers of other countries is criminal behavior, against international law.

You are crazy, once you start such distortions of what I explain many times - namely that I do not have a particular theory of who is who in the deep state, that the deep state is split itself, with some part supporting Trump, and that Trump would be nothing without such support.

Yes, I dare. Hillary was responsible for two highly criminal terrorist wars - against Libya and Syria. Of course, not alone, but in cooperation with a lot of other war criminals like Obama. Trump has yet to start a war. It is, of course, not impossible - US presidents are known to be criminals who cannot live four years in the WH without starting some war. Why should Trump be an exception? But up to now he has not started a war.

In jail should be that woman who has started murderous wars against Libyan and Syrian people, together with all her accomplices starting with Obama. In comparison all that Trump has done is nothing at all. How many people have been murdered up to now in wars started by Trump?

Of course, Trump is not innocent, innocent people have simply no chance at all to become US presidents, one should be criminal to reach this position.

North Korea is a brutal dictatorship, Russia is, instead, a quite normal, average democracy, with all the problems and failures of democracies.

The state where I live actually is much less democratic than Russia, but better for me.

 

No doubt.

 

Compared with Trump. And you were wrong about both of them, because you had no information - only propaganda feeds, and the delusion of being able to evaluate them without information.

John Bolton bears as much or more responsibility for the Syrian war than Clinton - and he's in power now, right in front of you, due to Trump gaining the Presidency. You supported his re-installation.

In wars started by his supporters, allies, and administration appointees? The people his election was bringing back into power, and turning loose on the world? - probably millions, certainly if one includes sanctions etc (as they are imposing on Venezuela).
Adults are expected to see fascism coming.
- - -

You never mention the people most responsible - only the ones less responsible, as named for you by US wingnut propaganda.

Anyone who regards anything Trump said during the campaign as a "well-thought decision" regarding US foreign policy is an idiot. He has no such "thoughts", and that has been obvious for many years.

What "ideas" was he prevented from enacting?

What you "care" about, from one post to the next, is whatever covers your ass for not seeing fascism coming.
For example: Your fantasy of Putin choosing to start a nuclear war over a no-fly zone in Syria, on purpose, was and is trivial compared with the real life nuclear buildup Putin and Trump both favored and have since abetted. Trump likes nuclear weapons - he wanted to use them, he wants to build more, he wants to put them in space.

It's true that the kind of kleptocratic regime Russia slid into is so common in failing democracies (especially those based on resource extraction) that one could describe it as "normal" or "average", in a sense. But it's ugly, disastrous, even so.

And spreading it into the US would not reduce the chances of nuclear war.

 

Yes, we just assassinate protesters (political opponents) here in the US, in broad daylight, just like they do in Russia or Saudi Arabia.

 

https://www.juancole.com/2019/02/centrist-minister-mysteriously.html

The effects of Trump's foreign policy are just beginning to take hold.

 

It will be very interesting to find out why Zarif resigned so inexplicably.
Using an instagram post to do it ...of all things...

 

And that can be ignored? I have real trouble in evaluating your moral standards. You speak entirely too casual about criminal activity for my comfort. Are your standards so low that the occasional criminal behavior is tolerable in your book?

Crime is not an abstract concept. Crime is claiming that which is not yours to claim and taking it hurts the rightful owner in a real way. This is acceptable? Something like, "deal with it"? The law of the jungle?

What irks me the most is that supposedly civilized (superior) people are more inclined to see crime as a morally negotiable act. In reality, uncivilized (lower class) people have a much more robust honor system.

Make punishment fit the crime.

Is it fair that some poor Joe dealing a couple of ounces of marijuana is serving 20 years in jail, while the rich bankers who launder millions of drug dollars are seldom implicated at all during a major drug bust?

Ask Trump how he could buy a property and the next year sell it to a Russian rich guy for twice the money.

$60 MILLION DOLLAR PROFIT IN ONE YEAR? Forty million dollars does not turn into one hundred million dollars overnight. If I were a congressman, I'd like to know also and how much of that vulgar profit was taxed at all?

Why was the Deutsche Bank the only Bank that would lend Trump money, where no Bank in the US would lend him a dime? And for good reason.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-organization-deutsche-bank-loans-default-1337250

I wonder what role Manafort played in these non-trivial transactions.
================================================

If you want to take somebody's land under eminent domain, don't pay him a pittance, trade him for a similar size property of greater market value. That would be fair. Not what's going on today.

Somebody is making a profit on these "eminent domain" land deals, I guarantee it.

 

Once Bolton bears much more responsibility, despite Obama/Clinton in official power and Bolton not in any official power, elections and official power do not matter anyway. It means, electing Obama gave Bolton real power, enough to become more responsible for a US-paid terrorist war than Obama and Clinton. Not really impossible, given what we know about the deep state. But in this case, it does not matter anyway who is elected president.

No. In wars he started. Or is the US today a country where one ends in jail for things done by some supporters?

I name the people in official power in the US. If you think they have no such power, you support a much more radical deep state theory in comparison with me, and think elections matter even less than I think. Ok, no problem, but be at least consistent.

The idiot is the one who thinks that Trump has won the elections based on making completely stupid accidental claims.

I couldn't care less. Anyway, whatever I do, your mantra will continue unchanged, so it would be meaningless to care about this.

And those democracies extracting not resources from their own territory, but from the territories of other states they have conquered via "democratic" regime change operations are even more ugly.

Of course, propaganda victims will not see this, but who cares about such victims.

 

It would have been ignored without that operation to remove Trump.

Occasional criminal behavior is what has to be expected from politicians, as part of their job. This has nothing to do with my moral standards, any person with moral standards would have to reject politicians completely, with some rare exceptions, say, like Ron Paul or so.

In everyday life, not. In politics, this is named taxation, and they all live from income gained in such a way. So, indeed, deal with it.

What would the rich gain from robust honor? The superrich all use lobbies to gain government power to extract additional profits, thus, they have to see crime as negotiable, else they would have to despise themselves. But the superrich is the role models for the rich. What would you expect?

 

You keep posting silly crap like that because you lack information.
For example: you apparently have no idea what Bolton's influence and power has been, even the basic biography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
and you have no clear idea of Clinton's role in US policy in Syria, for comparison.

Elections and official power matter, obviously, in Bolton's influence and power - without the election of Republican W&Cheney, he would have played almost no role in US foreign policy in Iraq. Without the election of Trump, he would be playing almost no role now. Your support for Trump was support for Bolton - you favored giving power and influence, and that's what you got.

As we see in the careers of Elliot Abrams and John Bolton and the US administrations that employ them and their kind.
Which you support.

You don't. You continually overlook and omit the ones with the most official power in doing the things you deplore.

Then you are blathering irrelevancy.
You supported the candidate most likely to have the US do exactly what you claimed you didn't want it to do, the candidate whose administration would most resemble the administrations whose behavior you most deplored, the candidate most likely to have the US behave as you claimed you didn't want the US to behave. Now he is doing that - and you are flailing around looking for some "deep State" to explain what was right in front of you all along.

They were neither stupid nor accidental. They were the rhetorical claims, the bullshit line, of a very good, very able con man (and likely blackmail victim). You bit - hook, line, and sinker.
You actually believe they were evidence of well-thought US foreign policy, for chrissake. (While ignoring the ones you didn't like, such as more nuclear weapons and more overseas military violence and more torture prisons and more taking oil by coercion and so forth).
And now you have Bolton and Abrams to look at, as predicted by the better informed.