The Trump Presidency

One question I have is, should the left wing media, including the NYT, be accused of bullying? Should they be dealt with accordingly, by the laws that restrict bullying? Picture if Trump was a student at high school and a gang of nerds started to pick on him. The gang accuses little Trump of all types of bad things on social media, but they have no hard evidence to back it up. Every day they try to publicly humiliate him with anonymous source data that can't be verified or cross examined. The nerds believe their own unproven accusations, and use this as an excuse to become even further abusive. Would the caring and feeling left protect high school Trump from the nerd bullies? Or would they join the bullies? The left are hypocrites, which is why they lost power and can't make any ground in the run-off elections.

If Trump was in high school, he would more than likely do what Republican Greg Gianoforte did to the leftist journalist, who was being an abusive bully. He would lift the nerd off the ground and body slam him. This is called reality checking. The media nerds have gotten into the habit of attacking people and expecting that nobody will or can fight back, since they will out number anyone. Gianoforte won his run off election, in spite of defending his honor against an abusive nerd. This shows that the majority of the people understand who the bullies are, in spite of the dual standards.

The left has made bullying taboo and has demonstrated that it will not be tolerated and the system will come down hard on the bullies. Gianoforte was following this leftist initiative. Trump may need to body slam some of the people on CNN and the NYT for bullying. I can picture Trump grabbing Wolf Blitzer by the back of the neck and the back of his belt and launching him. It would be hilarious and would increase his support.

According to the left words can hurt like a punch, so if someone punches you with words and it hurts, you can defend yourself. There is nothing that unites the good people more than someone who stands up to and beats up the bully, for all of them. The Swamp is also composed of bullies and Trump is trying to body slam them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are so delusional, wellwisher. It can't be easy making up those idiotic excuses for the repulicunts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I found skimming wellwisher's post rather comical:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When did asking a legitimate campaign question become bullying?

Asking questions is what a free press does comrade. It's that free speech thingy in the US Constitution. You should check it out comrade.

If you can't stand the heat perhaps you and yours should get out of the kitchen.

 

#makebelieve | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click because at some point we stop asking why.​

No, not yet.

One question I have is what's with the straw man.

Another is what's with the post.

Yet another is what's with you.

Then again, what really should we expect? Conservatives hate the free press? Of course they do. Remember, complaining that a free press is inherently unfair was the fallacy by which conservatives built a combination Republican propaganda and sex crime factory otherwise known as FOX News. Not being able to handle the truth was a convenient excuse; cowardice is a fundamental component of conservatism.

 

The note Trump left at Yad Vashem:

I still sometimes think this guy is just trolling us.

 

Except for the correct spelling, that is so Trumpian.

 

Well, he does consistently mix lower- and upper-case, but there's a weird sort of cleverness in his regular abstention from using proper sentence structure--I mean, you can't really parse Trump-speak. So, when he says that "(he) will never forget," is he talking about his visit, or... It's almost as though he knows that were he to phrase that differently, as a subordinate clause perhaps, we could hang him.

In all seriousness though, I don't think he knows that.

 

I think you are correct Parmalee.

 

Today it was reported that Kushner, Trump's son in-law, requested the Russian ambassador set up a back channel communication system using Russian equipment so as to evade American counter intelligence. One has to wonder why. prior to this release Kushner said he would voluntarily talk to investigators. Suddenly, Kushner has gone silent.

Well, at least these reports are consistent. Pince, the brother of DeVos, Trump's Secretary of Education, traveled to the Seychelles to meet with Russians to set up this back channel communications system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.a724fb7e1548
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-line-with-kremlin-before-inauguration-report

And the other odd fact is Trump's closest advisers keep forgetting to list their Russian contacts on security screening documents when they are obliged to do so. When it comes to Russia, they all seem to have a case of mass amnesia.

 

It looks to be less a matter of what he "knows", and more a matter of skills he's picked up in a lifetime of running cons. It's not something he has to think about any more.

 

Kushner is apparently one of the three guys setting up the "war room" for handling the various investigations - Bannon and Priebus being the other two, reportedly. They're all lawyered up now, and not talking.

 

Trump's base is shrinking:

"A widely held tenet of the current conventional wisdom is that while President Trump might not be popular overall, he has a high floor on his support. Trump’s sizable and enthusiastic base — perhaps 35 to 40 percent of the country — won’t abandon him any time soon, the theory goes, and they don’t necessarily care about some of the controversies that the “mainstream media” treats as game-changing developments.

It’s an entirely reasonable theory. We live in a highly partisan epoch, and voters are usually loyal to politicians from their party. Trump endured a lot of turbulence in the general election but stuck it out to win the Electoral College. The media doesn’t always guess right about which stories will resonate with voters.

But the theory isn’t supported by the evidence. To the contrary, Trump’s base seems to be eroding. There’s been a considerable decline in the number of Americans who strongly approve of Trump, from a peak of around 30 percent in February to just 21 or 22 percent of the electorate now. (The decline in Trump’s strong approval ratings is larger than the overall decline in his approval ratings, in fact.) Far from having unconditional love from his base, Trump has already lost almost a third of his strong support. And voters who strongly disapprove of Trump outnumber those who strongly approve of him by about a 2-to-1 ratio, which could presage an “enthusiasm gap” that works against Trump at the midterms. The data suggests, in particular, that the GOP’s initial attempt (and failure) in March to pass its unpopular health care bill may have cost Trump with his core supporters."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/

 

received approx. 5 minutes air time on national news broadcaster here (SBS AU) during peak evening news...wtf!!!?

 

The big "T" word just gets bigger every day....back channels to circumvent intelligence services ..uhmmm "T"

 

Trump has cancelled a rally which had been scheduled for Thursday. God knows Trump loves campaign rallies, so for Trump to cancel a campaign rally, well, that’s something.

Since this information became known the Trump administration has become uncharacteristically silent. His European tour has been a disaster. He distinguished himself as a rude guest who alienated many of our allies. Putin would be proud of his acolyte.

I don’t know how else you can characterize this back channel communication Trump has attempted to set up with Putin as anything other than treason.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/27/donald-trumps-europe-tour-leaves-leaders-shaken

Was the requested back channel communications set up? If so, what was communicated and why? Is it still active?

PS: The request for this back channel communication was made before Trump's inauguration. And the story has been confirmed by multiple media sources.

 

Leading to WW I. After this, classical international law was almost dead. World war II was already a product of the new, democratic world order.

Yes, but inflation was or some short time effect (like some new gold resources detected) or by states not holding their promises about backing. Then, no, gold, silver and other things used as currency (say, tobacco in war times or in prisons) get their value not by fiat. Even if the value changes if something becomes a currency, simply because after this many people buy it not because of its usual properties, but as a currency. Nonetheless, this effect remains quite stable too.

It is simply return to the general human condition. If this ape species appears too aggressive to survive having nuclear weapons, bad luck for apes on Earth.

I had no such chance. I had only a naive hope in the 90's in this direction. It was the US which has destroyed these hopes thouroughly, by becoming more criminal, more violating international law, openly as well as with terrorism and color revolutions, forced me to apply the label "totalitarian", originally designed for communism and fascism, to the actual world order too. You suggest to hope that this tendency would be reversed, by some mystery, and the US becoming somehow more constitutional, less lawless, less totalitarian instead of even more?

The remaining choice is a quite old choice - the choice between living in war or in prison. I prefer war, not because I like war, but because it is less evil.

And, just for fun, a nice article: The Empire should be placed on suicide watch
.

 

So? The major inflations of commodity backed currencies were disasters, just like the out-of control major fiat ones will be whenever they happen (Zimbabwe was not "major"). Commodity backing does not prevent them.

Commodities used in barter are not money. To the extent they were used as money, they were abstracted from their value in use and given a fiat value for use in exchange.

That general human condition did not involve capitalist industry, nation-States, global trade - or nuclear weapons. There is no "return".

It's possible, yes - because the US has become worse recently, there seems to be no reason in principle it cannot become better. Perhaps by breaking up, even - it seems fanciful now, but the real advantages of the Union are diminishing along with the prestige. Perhaps by expanding and dissipating its authority over enlarged areas. Perhaps by electoral revolt - elections in the US do make large, even fundamental, changes.
But first we have to weather Trump. Nothing good can come from Trump. Nothing you claim to want is made more likely by Trump. You favor war over prison? Trump will give you both. Fascists are incompetent, but the evils of government do not need competence - only the benefits.

 

Major inflations (with Zimbabwe not even major) of a really commodity-backed currency (and nor falsely promised by a state as commodity-backed)? Example please.

Name it as you like, as long as money are really commodity-backed, the real value of that commodity matters.

There is never a return - you cannot go into the same river twice, this was already known in Old Greece or so.

You see no reason, I see such reasons. All what you mention as possibilities are, in one way or another, steps away from world government. Breaking up in the most obvious way, the "dissipating" part of your second hope, and the result of an electoral revolt of those deplorables we actually observe.

The libertarian position about Trump is not that pessimistic. See what the bionic mosquito thinks about this.

In general, Trump has already given a lot: TPP already dead, now NATO deeply frustrated, with Trump "forgetting" about Art. 5 without payment of 2% GDP for American weapons, the US divided between those who claim the elections have been faked by the Russians and those who claim that the democrats have faked them, with agreement about elections being faked.

 

That doesn't help you. The problems of a modern economy - inflations and crashes and economic disasters - remain.

Now we have you excluding the "false promise", as if that were not a standard aspect and weakness of commodity backed currencies, and an inevitable part of every disaster involving them.

Exclude false promising government, and there have been no major inflations involving any currencies. Or any other economic disasters.

So?

That is the left libertarian position.
The right libertarian position has some optimistic thoughts, mainly in their presumptions of Greater Freedom Through Tax Cuts (for rich people).

The optimism, such as it is, in the libertarian Left in the US is from the possibility that Trump's current battles with the Security agencies will weaken both instead of producing either a winner or a pact (see Michael Glennon's article in the June Harper's Magazine).

The TPP is dead only in name, not in its bad aspects that you don't like; NATO "frustration" is a threat not a benefit, especially to you; there is no agreement on the faked elections, and the result of trashing them is a further devaluation of US elections themselves - which you think is good because you think it weakens the US, without comprehending that a domestically weaker and less democratic US is more totalitarian and more militaristic and more threat of nuclear war and more of the foreign bad stuff you didn't like, coupled with less control and less curbing of the multinational corporate powers based in the US whose influence you don't like.
The US corporate powers have gained, and the US military stands to gain - and if you think Clintons are bad news, wait til you meet some combination of Exxon, Gazprom, and the US Marine Corps; the Modern Banana Republic X Hapsburg Redux agenda with the State Department gloves off. Putin won't protect you - he'll buy in.