And when he doesn't, it's because the deep State sabotaged him somehow.
Right?
When he doesn't, whose fault will that be?
Trumping Toward War: The United States, American Conservatism, and Iran
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Right?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Or he sabotages himself. It is something he is able to do. Or his potential best friends show no interest. Last but not least, the US has already asked Iran for permission to bomb some empty shack in Iran as "retaliation", but not got it, and Iran has actually put some conditions before even starting negotiations. A similar approach would be reasonable for Maduro too.
Why do you think I would care about whose fault it is? I couldn't care less. Are you a victim of your own propaganda lies that I repeat everything the Rep propaganda cares about?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Trump is a self described gambler.
That would seem to imply that he knows how to run a bluff.
if so
enter a cabinet with seemingly heavy warlike tendencies.
including John bolton
as/re
Have you any idea just what that might be?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Guz Candy
cookie cinnamon apple pie
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Guz Candy
cookie cinnamon apple pie
OK
You gonna tie this into the thread at hand?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Anything peaceful will do it, like troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Syria, or some meeting with Rouhani or Maduro with some nice declaration following.
I don't - I think if you cared, you would gather information.
I just think it will dominate your posting, as before - because your media feed sources are focused on that, as they have been for your entire tenure here, and so it makes up the bulk of your posting on this forum.
For example, you just now insisted on attempting to explain things like Bolton's firing as rooted in some grand governing or foreign policy strategy of Trump's, which is among the least likely possibilities (he doesn't have one) - it's far more likely to have been rooted in Trump's famous and well-documented dislike of Bolton's mustache, the sober and evidence-backed consensus explanation for his not having appointed Bolton to media visible cabinet office in the first place.
Nice declarations we will have, to go with the others provided over the past couple of years. Token "withdrawals" or some such - especially posited as future events - likewise. Accomplishments - semi-permanent or long term cessations of hostilities, say, other than materially supported by Putin - not so much.
- - - -
He is an observer described con man with mob connections. That would imply he temporarily believes his own mouth, whatever he said last. It would also imply that any ambitious and intelligent person willing to be associated with his deals thinks they can manipulate him.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Gifts of primary cultural significance that are shared as a gesture of good will and collectivism.
like sharing a meal
each side brings something to share with the other as a part of their culture
Vs
2 very high priced teams of people holidaying on the working class poors health and education budget in 5 star restaurants burning aviation fuel like throwing hand towels to starving hurricane victims
i am being extremely polite
& the cookie cinnamon apple pie looks amazing !
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
they always have a nice for themselves declaration afterward it is basic media tooling
"the weather was great, thankfully no rain on the 18th while we threw back some margaritas and played with cheap hookers"
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Fine, so why you ask me questions about thinks I don't care?
In general, it is not a good idea to think the enemy is stupid. If you err in the other direction, exaggerating his cleverness, the error usually harmless, underestimating him is often fatal. Up to now, I have seen something which is sufficiently close to a strategy, and this strategy makes even sense from a nationalist point of view. If it is Trump's strategy or the strategy of some deep state forces behind him or simply my ability to make sense of things which seem chaotic to other people does not matter. When I heard about that claim that Trump has said something like if he would have followed Bolton the US would have started several wars (don't remember the number) the question was for me when Bolton will be fired, not if.
Agreement. His main accomplishments will be of the negative sort - destructing the globalists power tools, especially international soft power - and essentially side effects of overplaying his cards.
Is Bolton ambitious and intelligent? Has he tried to manipulate him? Was he successful?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Bolton
just another dock up ya bay
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/australian-couple-detained-in-iran-are-travel-bloggers-/30160153.html
kidnapped by government secret police ?
no iran is not a safe place to travel to
why anyone would want to go to iran in the 1st place confuses me.
its the same as someone wanting to go to WWII nazi germany for a holiday.
just another dock up ya bay
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/australian-couple-detained-in-iran-are-travel-bloggers-/30160153.html
kidnapped by government secret police ?
no iran is not a safe place to travel to
why anyone would want to go to iran in the 1st place confuses me.
its the same as someone wanting to go to WWII nazi germany for a holiday.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I believe Trump is a Seditionist.
While this term was coined in 1798 by Johm Adams, it was used during WWII to intern Japanese US citizens.
I believe the term is wholly appropriate when applied to Trump's actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
Note the familiar themes.
IMO, Trump is using this old law to work his will. I believe it is unconstitutional.
Trump doesn't care. He likes it that way.
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
?
lol
https://www.investopedia.com/news/top-republican-donors/
?
in your opinion ... ?
has he drained the swamp people of their votes ?
yup !
[im waiting for the law-giver-celebrity's react video...?]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49703143
Last edited:
In response to your postings about them.
I don't.
"Stupidity" comes from your typing, not mine, remember - you invented that for me to have thought, said, etc, and all attempts to correct you failed.
If you want to make accurate predictions, best to base them on accurate assessments, is all. Trump has no ideology (beyond the standard fascist tactical approach) or geopolitical strategy, meanwhile Bolton's moustache has been very important to Trump for years- that's well documented.
Trump was talking like that before he hired Bolton, back when Bolton was one of his most important advisors (during the transition).
It matters enough to you that you post silly falsehoods and contradict people who have been right about Trump all along.
Leaving the hard power of the US untouched.
And the soft power of the Chinese and Russian globalists enhanced.
The Chinese are building up their military, as well - when AGW hits them as predicted, or India and Central Asia as is happening now, they will have alternatives beyond the economic leverage they are using now.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It is illegal for non-profits to donate to political campaigns.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
secret police kidnapping tourists and accusing them of being in the middle of no where
... and someone is suggesting they are morally sound enough to have nuclear weapons ?
both sides argument DPRK & Pakistan
a police state !
a part of me wants to blame the war tourists who seek to go into such countries.
concentration camp tourism
your ok as long as you dont go outside the fence into the public areas...
pot calling the kettle black seems to be the norm from both sides
police state apologist tourism ?
... and someone is suggesting they are morally sound enough to have nuclear weapons ?
both sides argument DPRK & Pakistan
a police state !
a part of me wants to blame the war tourists who seek to go into such countries.
concentration camp tourism
your ok as long as you dont go outside the fence into the public areas...
pot calling the kettle black seems to be the norm from both sides
police state apologist tourism ?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Ignoring the usual "you are stupid" bs, I found the following worth to be answered:
It was not unproblematic for me (a mathematician by education) to understand why this works, and (even more) why this makes sense as a rational strategy.
What is the point of this? He makes claims which every reasonable person simply interprets as metaphorical exaggerations. Like Kim being his best friend and so on. How a reasonable person reacts to such obviously exaggerated claims? He translates it into normal language so that the "Kim is my best friend" is translated into "in the negotiations, we have not yet seen lines of conflict which make further negotiations meaningless".
Why is Trump not, in this case, openly saying what is really behind the "Kim is my best friend" nonsense, namely "in the negotiations, we have not yet seen lines of conflict which make further negotiations meaningless"? Because of the consequences of this. As a democratic politician, you have to answer all the questions made by journalists in press conferences. As a real politician, you have to hide a lot from the public. Simply because without hiding details of yet not finished negotiations, you would have to violate elementary rules of trust which are a necessary requirement to start confidential negotiations at all. What is the usual way this problem is solved? Learn to "answer" questions of journalists by not answering these questions at all.
Every reasonable person easily recognizes this too. And identifies this as essentially lying about it. So, in comparison, Trump does not lose at all if his nonsensical exaggerations are named lies. The supporters don't care about such "lies", because they understand that the straightforward meaning is not serious and can correctly identify the real meaning of the exaggeration.
The alternative would be what Putin is doing. Say, he is supporting the Donbas rebels at least with weapons and advisors. This is fair game, given that the US has been supporting the Ukrainian Nazis with similar support during their fight against the legal democratically elected president Yanukovich, while Russia supports only the legal, democratically elected representations of the regions against the Nazis after their successful coup in Kiev. Would it be appropriate to openly admit this? Maybe, maybe not, he decided that this should not be acknowledged officially. But, of course, there will be questions about this by Western journalists. The answer? In such a situation, such rebels will always find ways to get access to weapons. Without denying that one way the Donbas rebels have found was delivery by Russia. Could a clever Western journalist in an interview with Putin ask for some more details, with the aim to get either some unreasonable answers or an admission of Russia providing weapons? No chance, because there have been other channels of delivery of weapons to the rebels, namely the large scale corruption of the Ukrainian army. Beslan, the rebel leader of Gorlovka, even accused Poroshenko for not delivering weapons to him which have been already paid.
But, as you can already see from this example, this requires extraordinary preparations, and it is not open to everybody.
"Chinese and Russian globalists" is a nonsensical combination of words, there are no such animals with any political relevance.
The Chinese military buildup is what has to be expected given the increasingly aggressive US behavior.
Looks like you have not understood that Trump has, for whatever reasons, decided that being presented as "stupid" and "having no ideology" (as well as "sexist", "racist" and so on) by his enemies is not dangerous for him at all.
It was not unproblematic for me (a mathematician by education) to understand why this works, and (even more) why this makes sense as a rational strategy.
What is the point of this? He makes claims which every reasonable person simply interprets as metaphorical exaggerations. Like Kim being his best friend and so on. How a reasonable person reacts to such obviously exaggerated claims? He translates it into normal language so that the "Kim is my best friend" is translated into "in the negotiations, we have not yet seen lines of conflict which make further negotiations meaningless".
Why is Trump not, in this case, openly saying what is really behind the "Kim is my best friend" nonsense, namely "in the negotiations, we have not yet seen lines of conflict which make further negotiations meaningless"? Because of the consequences of this. As a democratic politician, you have to answer all the questions made by journalists in press conferences. As a real politician, you have to hide a lot from the public. Simply because without hiding details of yet not finished negotiations, you would have to violate elementary rules of trust which are a necessary requirement to start confidential negotiations at all. What is the usual way this problem is solved? Learn to "answer" questions of journalists by not answering these questions at all.
Every reasonable person easily recognizes this too. And identifies this as essentially lying about it. So, in comparison, Trump does not lose at all if his nonsensical exaggerations are named lies. The supporters don't care about such "lies", because they understand that the straightforward meaning is not serious and can correctly identify the real meaning of the exaggeration.
The alternative would be what Putin is doing. Say, he is supporting the Donbas rebels at least with weapons and advisors. This is fair game, given that the US has been supporting the Ukrainian Nazis with similar support during their fight against the legal democratically elected president Yanukovich, while Russia supports only the legal, democratically elected representations of the regions against the Nazis after their successful coup in Kiev. Would it be appropriate to openly admit this? Maybe, maybe not, he decided that this should not be acknowledged officially. But, of course, there will be questions about this by Western journalists. The answer? In such a situation, such rebels will always find ways to get access to weapons. Without denying that one way the Donbas rebels have found was delivery by Russia. Could a clever Western journalist in an interview with Putin ask for some more details, with the aim to get either some unreasonable answers or an admission of Russia providing weapons? No chance, because there have been other channels of delivery of weapons to the rebels, namely the large scale corruption of the Ukrainian army. Beslan, the rebel leader of Gorlovka, even accused Poroshenko for not delivering weapons to him which have been already paid.
But, as you can already see from this example, this requires extraordinary preparations, and it is not open to everybody.
The untouched hard power - in particular, the aircraft carriers - automatically transforms into sitting ducks. Simply throwing more money into that is nice for the firms, but will not give much in real hard power given the corruption of the military-industrial complex of the US.
"Chinese and Russian globalists" is a nonsensical combination of words, there are no such animals with any political relevance.
The main problem of China regarding the climate are large regions without sufficient precipitation. Some large regions (Tibet) are also too cold (because too high) for reasonable agriculture.
The Chinese military buildup is what has to be expected given the increasingly aggressive US behavior.
Living and learning about fascism.
So?
Until they get hit with the consequences - like a thousand miles of disastrous wall that turns out to be neither metaphorical or exaggerated.
Assuming Trump is stupid and never means what he says is not a good idea, and I'm surprised you regard it as something a reasonable person would do.
By analyzing the behavior of the speaker.
Trump was and is getting fleeced by Kim - at least, in his role as the American President. He may get some real estate or money for himself, in the end - that would be
Trump's supporters in the US - the Republican voters - believe him. They take his claims seriously, for their straightforward meaning. They do not deal in metaphor, and what you call "obvious exaggeration" is not obvious to them.
It's his opponents in the US who identify any "real meaning" that may or may not exist, by tracking what he does and the effects of his "obvious exaggerations".
You have reversed these roles - do you know why? I do.
And the increasing heat in the high humidity river drainages where they grow a lot of food.
And an already over-dense, still growing population with a serious shortage of young women.
And an accumulated burden of ecological and environmental damage that cannot be repaired soon enough to handle AGW.
So the land just to the north, despite its marginality, is going to look very desirable as AGW hits. And China's methods of political control and oppression are getting very sophisticated - coupled with their investment in the military, many possibilities open up. Putin needs the US and China to fight each other, rather than him, especially as Russia becomes a climate change refuge in places. And he needs that fight to take place in the Middle East/Central Asia oil fields, Africa, or (long shot) South America somewhere.
Last edited:
Pretending that Russian people are important to global affairs would lead to more wars, not less, because the undeserved attention would easily get to their heads, like birthday cake to the fat kid who got his ass whooped at soccer 10 minutes earlier (do you guys eat birthday cake in Russia? Is it still good after sitting in the shop for a few weeks?). Next thing Bolivia or perhaps Morocco will start a nuclear weapons program and begin making threats and demands just like Putin, maybe Photoshop some stealth planes and missiles to spread around on Facebook like your friends always do, demand that they be treated like their ancestors accomplished something worth celebrating at some point in forgotten history. With functional economies backing them up, they would constitute far greater threats than the pants-pissing drunks littering Moscow, it's a truly scary thought.