The Trump Presidency

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    No, that would justice in accordance to law.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Plausible, but there is no contradiction.

    Trump deserves to sit behind bars for his crimes as every former US president living yet. This is not in conflict that this will happen only if the president who rules at the time of Trump's imprisoning will allow real imprisonment only if he is certain that the Reps will never during his live gain power to retaliate.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    Retaliate against what? The Judiciary and Justice?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    btw:
    It isn't just me: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/12/showtime-reagans-ronald-nancy-trump
    - - - -
    You care, because you need the fascist Ukrainians to be cooperating with US Democrats, not Republicans. Otherwise you are posting obvious falsehoods in line with exactly one source of such assertions.
    You pointed to it as a decent place to live, congenial with your values, except for the surveillance. You claimed it was capitalist, for example, and less intrusive into people's lives than the US.
    You also claim to not know.
    And in neither case do you appear to understand that almost all Republicans in the Federal government ( that is, almost all Trump supporters in the Federal government) are "globalists" - as is Trump, of course. The fringe and near-powerless category of anti-Trump globalist Republican public figure is a roundoff error in the Republican count.
    That kind of foolishness is why I assume you haven't read de Soto, in particular. At a minimum you would have been confronted with the difference between property one can post as collateral or security, and property one cannot - even sharpened your view of Chinese banking as well, which has no such solid base.
    In some matters.
    The environmental trends they have established will probably lead to disaster, and the government seems almost clueless - like banking systems, ecological systems cannot be threatened or cajoled into behaving as one needs them to.
    And the soldiers, threats, occupation, etc - that was just for show, Russia was pretending to annex Crimea by threat and force.
    Got it.
    There is no such deep State, in the US.
    Trump, being typically post-Reagan Republican, is more rather than less reliant on military force compared with non-Republican politicians (like W&Cheney, only with much less opportunity in their wake) - but you refuse to see wall-building and drone murder and unilaterally ripping up treaties and suspension of civil rights and such as acts of war, you ascribe Trump's submissive acquiescence to Putin's agenda and Erdogan's interests as peaceful, and you haven't the familiarity with American domestic politics you would need to understand what the consequences of boosting the military budget while crippling all other means of foreign policy engagement are likely to be ("globalism" at gunpoint, briefly).
    That was more than fifty years ago.
    As always you address nothing except the media feed, which you have divided into opposing but otherwise ostensibly equivalent propaganda campaigns based on language alone. The physical reality of the situation is completely invisible to you. (You have not, for example, read the Mueller Report).

    The Republican propaganda war is in its fifth decade. It is and has been based on lies, organized under the familiar Big Lie principle of that Party's post-Reagan ideology. The impeachment of Trump was based on the reality of Trump's criminal behavior and violations of his oath of office. Russiagate was indeed new - Reagan could have been confronted with something similar based on his covert dealings with Iran, but wasn't; W&Cheney were of course hardly even covert in the Plame betrayal, but found a scapegoat.
    The US President does not have control over such things.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Highlighted

    Absolutely

    He has caused death , directly to the American People . With NO Empathy , Remorse or Care . Against The Oath Of Inauguration in 2016 .

    Trump is Guilty of Treason ; of the Highest Order .
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    If these representatives advocate for criminal action on the House floor, the Sergeant at Arms should escort them from the floor and lock them up in the basement jail on the charge of sedition.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    Trump just told the Georgia legislature to come up with 11,000 votes out of thin air.
    That is solicitation to commit a crime.

    And it is an Impeachable offense.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    You gotta wonder, how many times must a man and his political party lose an election before he/they accept that he/they have lost an election?
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    Trump is suing Georgia governor for making the telephone call public!

    This is turning into a Shakespearean comedy...!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Just to clarify this: River has quoted me as "Trump deserves to sit behind bars for his crimes ( more than, ) as every former US president living yet". The part "( more than, )" was inserted by river. The appropriate way to mark such insertions are squared brackets, [more than, ] would have been more appropriate. But it would have been inappropriate anyway, because "more than" changed the meaning of my text essentially. Instead, I could have written, instead, "less than", given that Trump has at least not started new wars. (But, of course, even with a "much less than" there would be enough for many death penalties in every state which has one.)
    I couldn't care less, I'm fine with the Ukrainian fascists cooperating with both. I simply have no good evidence for this at hand. That does not mean that I think there is none. I would start with looking what McCain, a guy who would support even cannibals if they would fight Russia, did during the Maidan time (if I would be interested at all in this question).
    Nonsense. I do not consider China to be a decent place to live for me. It is capitalist for all what matters, in a comparable degree than all other capitalist states. About the level of intrusion into Chinese people's lives I don't have sufficient information, so that this is a lie, as usual quote please or you are once again an established liar. China is less intrusive into internal affairs of other countries, which is something obviously completely different.
    You think so, I don't think so. My opinion is based on sources you cannot even read without translation.
    I was simply not impressed by that argument. I simply think he overestimates the role of credits.
    I don't expect any distaster from Chinese environment, they have already started to care about it, and their reforestation has already gained quite visible results.

    How the banking system is controlled in Chinese reality there I don't know, and judging from what you write you don't know too. You should not forget that it is not like in the US where the Wall Street runs the FED, but it is the CCP which rules all this, so to extrapolate something from the US to China is completely off. I would expect that considering the details would show something similar to the situation with the military-industrial complex. Similar situation, in the US the industry rules, in Russia the state rules the industry. So Russia can, with 10% of the US military budget, even gain superiority in many particular things. The central question who rules changes a lot.
    And once the lobby rules, with the lobby having no constitutional power whatever, the only answer to
    is LOL
    Who cares about the low level executors? Retaliate against the leading guys of the Dem faction of the deep state who decided to imprison Trump. Given that you believe the propaganda about independence of US justice, this, of course, will not make sense to you. But I'm not such a believer.
    Who cares? Once the Dem faction of the deep state imprisons a Rep president, the Rep faction gaining power will imprison the Dem president. Tit for tat. BTW, he has the power to give clemency not? What else does he need to protect himself from such a retaliation?
    And then all this working (at that time) system transformed in what you have today. This started not with Trump, of course. See Lofgren, M. (2012). The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Now presidents are leaving not sure if they will not be imprisoned because they are really hated by the politicians gaining power. But democracy works only if those who have to leave power can be sure they will not be persecuted and have a chance to gain power in the next elections.

    Some usual 'you know nothing' nonsense, combined with the usual hate speech against the evil Reps (Dems of course being completely innocent victims) disposed of.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    Given what transpired in the past few days, you still feel that way?

    You just have no clue about the depth of Narcissism and Egocentricity in this individual who had Roy Cohn as mentor.

    Roy Cohn
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Your opinions as posted here read word for word as a parroting of the US Republican propaganda feed.
    And there is no other source of such opinions in that language. Common error of that persistence and continuity is overwhelming evidence of common descent.
    You base entire posts on false statements, bogus claims, and ignorant mistakes.
    Then you claim to not care.

    If you don't care, stop making them. Try to ground your posts in accurate and fact -supported claims, rather than the fantasies of the US Republican media feed.
    It isn't. For example, it does not have capital ownership of the major means of economic production, such as land. That's basic - the defining characteristic.
    You are ignorant, of course, as in everything related to biology or climate - the disaster is in motion, China is not yet "reforesting", the water wars of the Himalayas are just getting started, the irresponsible broadcast of GMOs is in full swing;
    look at the floods, look at the fishing grounds, look at the aquaculture and mangroves, the low level wet rice river delta agriculture, etc etc etc etc.
    But that is no excuse for something as silly as "already started to care" - they are many decades late, and still building new coal plants. Way behind the curve.
    You have been posting in ignorance of de Soto's arguments - whether you "agree" with them or not.
    That was exactly my point.
    That's a recipe for disaster. Unsupervised bankers, "experts" in finance unregulated, will blow up your economy. China is not immune.
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    It's not my problem that you misinterpret my statements as being about something I don't care. Learn to read, this helps. It is also not my problem if you write in an answer to me some completely irrelevant things I don't care about.
    Don't repeat yourself, I have already explained why I don't care about your defining.
    The question is not when some alarmists cry it is too late, but when the society is rich enough to pay for improvement of the environment. Recommended reading: Shellenberger, M. Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

    Answering my "How the banking system is controlled in Chinese reality ... judging from what you write you don't know too" iceaura writes:
    Once you acknowledge that you don't know anything about it, why do you write horror predictions about it?
    Once you point was that you don't know, how do you know that they are unsupervised? The reasonable guess is that they are supervised by the CCP organs which you don't know. Judging from their results up to now, they seem quite competent.

    Neither narcissism nor egocentricity nor having that Roy Cohn as a mentor is illegal. So why should I care? BTW, Ethel Rosenberg was killed intentionally to protect the source of the information that Nathan Rosenberg was a spy. So this was not something that Roy Cohn can be blamed for, it was the intelligence service which insisted on this.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That's why I have to keep repeating - your repetitive parroting, like all propaganda, wins by repetition.
    I do know something about it - as posted above, for you to read.
    And my predictions are pretty much ordinary - nothing unusually horrible about them. Bankers are bankers the world over.
    I could simply have taken your word - you celebrated the fact, posting as favorable the dominant and top level authority of financial experts and highly competent technocrats in Chinese banking.

    But I chose to refer to the obvious and undeniable evidence: By the fact that we don't know. Nobody knows.

    In other words: So do you, as I pointed out. Like me, you know (claimed to know, explicitly, here) that the central Chinese bank is not transparent, is not regulated or supervised by publicly accountable authorities, and is run by a small number of experts in finance or the like. You just don't know what that means, historically.

    You don't know what my reference to Hoover meant, for example.
    (factors in choosing that reference: I don't know offhand the names of the Japanese moneylenders who blew up the Japanese economy, you are propaganda armored against information about the US moneylenders who blew up the US economy in the 2000s, you haven't studied historical examples of long-term successful banking such as Venice, and so forth - so the direct Chinese reference looked best, decorated with a reference to domestic US history for my entertainment if you attempt to respond to that. But you were maybe too alert? )
    And again the concept of "stable equilibrium" proves to be beyond your comprehension.
    Countries impoverish themselves by damaging their environment, and maintain themselves in the consequent poverty and degradation until they bite the bullet or suffer the fate and do or have done to them what is necessary to escape - the more damage they have inflicted, the more hardship they will have to endure to escape. China has barely begun to recognize the situation they have been creating for themselves these past decades. Whether they can deal with it remains to be seen - a banking crash would not help at all, and the climate change is partly in variability: no agricultural system can handle that without severe hardship.

    Relevance: the hole the US deepened for itself via Reaganomics and other crippling "Republican" influences is (like the Chinese situation) partly ecological. It isn't going to go away - getting rid of Trump would be just a step toward digging out of the Republican sewer that produced him, the cesspit he merely deepened and festooned. It won't dig itself out. It will take conscious effort.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2021
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Boldfaced correction is mine.
    You don't know how they are controlled, but claim they are unsupervised.
    But banking regulation is not banking regulation the world over. Once you don't know details about how the Chinese banks work, stop making claims.
    First, you cannot, because you are unable to read (to understand what I write), as you have proven by distorting almost everything I wrote. I criticized that you name them unsupervised, and in this question you cannot rely on me because I have never claimed they are unsupervised.

    That the Chinese bureaucracy is competent, and, in comparison with Western bureaucracy highly competent, is what naturally follows from the organization of the Chinese society, where the career in government starts with very serious entry exams. And it is supported by the success of the Chinese development at least up to now.
    So what you know and we agree about is "not regulated or supervised by publicly accountable authorities". Which is something quite different from "not supervised". What you propose to be the solution is a solution only in democratic ideology. If it helps in reality is quite a different question.
    I responded implicitly, by pointing out the difference between US traditions and Chinese traditions. A meritocracy may be superior in such questions. One cannot be sure, of course, meritocracies may fail as well. But I would expect at least some superiority. And a reference to the failure of non-meritocratic societies cannot prove the failure of meritocratic ones.
    Except that your scenario has nothing to do with Chinese reality. At least China is now much greener than before, and China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. See https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/greening.php for the references. These are simply facts visible even from outside. They have done things to improve air quality:

    Up to now, the climate change has caused greening. And, about your whining about coal:
    Very good book, supports many of the positions I have defended in https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,613
    As I understand it, China is practising State Capitalism.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Massive wildfires, deeper floods and storm surges, more violent and sporadic rain, more rapid spread of invasives, pests, weeds, vectored diseases, and so forth, are not called "greening" by the sane.
    You described them as experts in charge without accountability to the public. That description is supported by the lack of transparency and regulation, so that we can see for ourselves that there is no accountability to the public.
    Absence of banking regulation is absence of banking regulation the world over.
    Thanks.
    That won't help, if history is any guide.
    As I posted above - it seems every rightwing authoritarian generation has to learn about Banking Man for themselves. Why they don't learn from the consistent record of thousands of years of recorded history, nobody knows.
    The Americans, for example, finally learned from the Republican Crash of '29 and its handling that experts in finance should not be left unregulated and unaccountable to the public.
    Then they died, and the new generation of rightwing authoritarian Americans had to learn it all over again - which they could have in the mid '80s, but instead chose to begin doing in 2003, with emphasis in 2008, but still in process as of today.
    Yep.
    My claims are based on my inability - and yours, and apparently everyone else's - to discover and track the details of how the Chinese central bank is operating at any given time.
    If you object, you can easily dismiss my argument by pointing to a source of such information about the doings of the central banking system in China, and examples of the experts in charge being curbed in something they wanted to do by regulations or supervision.
     
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Of course, what is called "greening" is described in https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/greening.php and references there.
    Yes, no accountability to the public. I would not expect a meritocratic society to value accountability to the public. Responsibility for the public - yes. Like the responsibility of parents for the children. But not accountability to the public. Last but not least, the public is either not interested or not smart enough to meet the requirements of the entry exams.

    Just to clarify - I do not propose a meritocracy, I'm yet libertarian. There are a lot of things which can go wrong with a meritocracy. First of all, what is the knowledge the leaders have to know? The Quran? The teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Mao? Or Kant/Hegel? Confucius? Natural sciences? Big bang theory, Darwinism, quantum theory? Which economic theory? Keynesian or Austrian? I would think meritocracies tend to become dogmatic, and once they become dogmatic they will start to fail, but unable to correct the failure.
    So what? You don't know if there is such an absence.
    No, to object it is completely sufficient to point out that your claims are based on the absence of information. You don't know if and how the CCP regulates Chinese banking, so to claim that it is bad or even nonexistend is speculation.
    The CCP is now "rightwing authoritarian"? Ok, nice to know. Why you think they don't learn from history I don't know. The only thing which is visible is that up to now there was no big crash, despite an already very long and big boom.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Interesting to see that the Trump Presidency could be ending with full control of the US Congress moving back under Democratic control - although both Georgia seats currently being contested are rather tight so the current prediction (that they fall to the Democrats) might not transpire.
    The BBC analysis suggests that had Trump not been busy attacking his own party and trying to overturn the Presidential election result, and actually helped support the Republican candidates in Georgia, the Republicans may have had an easier time in trying to maintain control of the Senate.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Full Dem control would be fine. They are actually in a state that they will harm the US much more without having to compromise with Reps in the Senate. If we would be happy, they would start building socialism. That they want to secure one-party rule forever they have already said quite openly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page