Skip to main content

Topic: Everything Trump… (Read 4919 times)

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Everything Trump…
Too lazy to create a new thread, after earlier (IIRC) pointing out this thread has expired?
:) Yup!
But of course people need a place to vent their spleen... So, consider this an open-ended receptacle.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • jax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #100
It just goes to show that you can't underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of the Trump voter. You suspect they are dumb and they prove to you to be much dumber.

First of all the ICC is not a UN organisation. Second, the creation of the ICC was by the instigation by the US, and it is an open secret that it serves US interests. Everyone charged by the ICC have been enemies of the US. Nobody cares because these bastards deserve to be in jail anyway. Third, the ICC is no threat to any half-way civilised country with rule of law. Any country that prosecutes war criminals or genocidal maniacs will have no quarrel with the ICC. It is a court of last resort. Fourth, maybe because they didn't think the US to be a half-way civilised country, the Republicans blocked any possibility of an American being charged from the beginning. A moral black eye, and easy propaganda for people who hate America, but again it didn't matter. Fifth, none of Bolton's bluster has any practical impact on the ICC whatsoever, but sixth it does make the US look stupid, and more than that imply it is a country willing to commit crimes against humanity and suspend the rule of law, and it puts up a template for despots and murderers to follow.

So you set up the game, invite people to play. You make the rules, and stack them so that you cannot lose under any circumstance. Then you kick over the game, say you are afraid to lose, and run home.

It doesn't matter in a practical sense, it is what it is, but the gross stupidity of it boggles the mind. The US now has a government intent on doing maximal damage to its own country for, in this case, no benefit whatsoever.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #101
Third, the ICC is no threat to any half-way civilised country with rule of law.
Is the USA an "half-way civilized country with rule of law"? It seems not anymore.

We are dangerously near catastrophe.
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #102
Is the USA an "half-way civilized country with rule of law"? It seems not anymore.
Somewhere in mid-80's I read about Reagan's Star Wars plan. It was quite literally called that, the plan to nuclearise the atmosphere as if it belonged to the USA. I got the same sense about the USA back then as many do about North Korea now. Except that North Korea is only able to accidentally nuke themselves, while USA really is warring all over the world indiscriminately and unaccountably. Sad world.

  • krake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #103
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
International laws never applied to the US. They were merely considered useful instruments to push through US interests and if this didn't work those laws were simply ignored.

As for its allies, the USA always applied the "carrot and stick" policy. Only problem with that, sooner or later the USA may run out of carrots.
For US allies this means, either to get used to sticks without carrots or to reconsider the scope of the alliance.

  • Jochie
  • [*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #104
According to the book, Fear, Mattis and Tillerson tried to clue Trump in. They took Trump to the Pentagon tank where Mattison explained the 70 years of agreements and alliances after WW 2 that gave us domination. Tillerson added that's how the peace was kept. Pax Americana. Trump blew up, screaming its all bs. A fit similar to what Hitler was known for near the end of WW 2.

Naturally  the real reason is that we had the world in our hands with third world countries being our cheap manufacturing base or industrial countries supplying goods at reasonable prices, But mostly a low cost labor base, dedicated to the  comfort Americans via consumer goods. The real advantage was always tailored to advantage America, to keep our consumer goods living standard high. Similar to what England did mid 19th century.

We still see that with the advantages most Americans have in consumer goods, imported goods. Compare that to domestic products and services many of which are overpriced and not that good. The healthcare industry and Internet services come to mind. We are still good in agriculture, farming, even if they are highly subsidized such as with the Ethanol boondoggle.

  • Mr. Tennessee
  • [*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #105
Trump can't be clued in. He defies Cluedom.

  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #106
Somewhere in mid-80's I read about Reagan's Star Wars plan. It was quite literally called that, the plan to nuclearise the atmosphere as if it belonged to the USA.
The Star Wars plan was an antinuclear program. While both the Soviets and US had plans to put nukes in orbit the plan was to put a satellite laser system in orbit to shoot down Soviet missiles (I'm sure other uses were considered). Either way I believe a treaty between the concerned parties made the need obsolete.

Only problem with that, sooner or later the USA may run out of carrots.
Done right - they don't ever get the carrot.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #107
The Star Wars plan was an antinuclear program.
Of course that's what they said. Yet the idea was a straightforward nuclear arms race.

  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #108
It didn't happen and the exact opposite of an arms race followed. I must of missed your point.

  • jax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #109
It was the modelling 0 to MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction was the desired state, because for any non-suicidal actor the destruction of their own side was not a winning strategy. As long as all parties were rational none would take the steps that led to MAD.

I say all instead of both, as China was a complication. China didn't and doesn't have a MAD-level arsenal, they have a nuclear deterrent. But according to a Chinese leak of unknown veracity the Soviet Union planned a nuclear attack on China, just a few years after MacArthur wanted the same during the Korean war. Now however the US blocked it, stating that a nuclear attack on China would be the same as one on the US, in effect escalating up to MAD.

MAD also made a third war in Europe unwinnable. Assuming the NATO defences were able to halt Warsaw Pact forces, it would be too tempting for the Soviet Union to use tactical weapons to penetrate and pass those defences. In that case it would be in US tactical interest to escalate as the resulting nuclear no man's land would halt that offensive. This system was unstable and would likely lead to MAD, thus not a venture to try.

The argument against Star Wars, anti-missile defences to shoot down approaching nuclear missiles, was that they too made MAD more likely. They might tempt the US to a first strike, hoping that the anti-missiles could reduce the retaliatory strike to something tolerable. There is some truth to that argument, if the US was put in a position to choose between a risky first strike or hold back and risk MAD.

But the real risk was, and still is, the ICBMs.  The other two parts of the nuclear triad, submarines and airborne, are not particularly vulnerable to first strike, but ICBMs are. If either side thought that a first strike was winnable, they might be tempted to do so rather than risk MAD. When both sides knew that the other side might attempt a first strike we had an unstable situation, either by a preemptive first strike, or by a preemptive retaliatory strike before those weapons were destroyed by the other side's first strike. With buggy detector systems on both sides, and a very short time frame from the weapons were fired to they reached their targets, the risks of accidental MAD were real. To some extent this was countered with a massive redundancy, but Star Wars could counter the counter.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #110
It didn't happen and the exact opposite of an arms race followed. I must of missed your point.
You did not miss the point. You only miss the facts. In your world, SU collapsed by itself, instead of under the pressure of the nuclear arms race. In your world, the number of countries with nuclear weapons is going down, not up. I'll let you have your facts as you please.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #111
NY Times has a good overview of the whole saga of Russian meddling in the Trump elections: The Plot to Subvert an Election


Enough clues there to reverse engineer the journalism, to retrace the steps and to draw one's own conclusions.

  • krake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #112

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #113
I specifically mentioned that the reader must follow the clues to reverse engineer the journalism. A good article enables the reader to do it. That particular one is a good article. The critics that I have read either do not know the hows and whys of journalism or do not care.

There is a difference between asserting on the one hand and reporting assertions on the other. Journalists do the latter, not the former. Critics should take note of the difference. Journalism does not prove; it informs.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #114
The belief that there is something extraordinarily sinister about "corporate media" is eery in the context of pro-Putinism. Particularly when the pro-Putinism speedily acquires elements of pro-Trumpism.

Just think: In what way is the state of journalism in Russia better than in "corporate media"? Would Trump make a better journalist than anybody he is criticising? Why has he kept giving interviews and shown up for talk shows all these decades?

Both pro-Putinism and pro-Trumpism are authoritarian mindset in the making. If you actually suppressed "corporate media", what semblance of free speech would you be left with?

Conspiracy theorists like to think of themselves as the only ones with a critical mind, while everybody else in their view supposedly thinks exactly what journalists tell them to think.

Guess what, hardly anyone turns to newspapers or tv to obtain ready-made thoughts. Instead, they read and listen to see if there is anything worthy of some consideration. Mostly there isn't, sometimes there is. They read for reference, not for blind affirmation.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #115
From a review of the latest Trump book - Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward
[Chief economic adviser Gary] Cohn's obsession was to get Trump to understand that trade deficits don't have to mean America is losing: he wanted the president to know that it's possible to be in deficit and still to be growing the economy. But Trump soon lost patience. 'I don't want to hear that, it's bullshit.'

Steve Bannon, at this point the president's chief strategist, and therefore someone who had to be invited along, decided to jump in. What's the value in defending the international order if America's allies won't give anything back? Trump had made it clear he wanted to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. '"Is one of your fucking great allies up in the European Union" going to back the president?' Bannon wanted to know. 'Give me one guy. One country. One company. Who's going to back sanctions?' Now Trump perked up. '"That's what I'm talking about," Trump said. "He just made my point. You talk about all these guys as allies. There's not an ally up there. Answer Steve's question. Who's going to back us?"' No one could answer Bannon's question, so the president moved on to Afghanistan, where he couldn't understand why he was spending so much money for so little return. 'When are we going to start winning some wars? We've got these charts. When are we going to win some wars? Why are you jamming this down my throat?' The charts weren't helping. In fact they were making things worse. 'You should be killing guys,' Trump told the trained killers in the room. 'You don't need a strategy to kill people.'

By now it was clear that the meeting had backfired horribly. But no one knew how to get out of it.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #116
You don't need a strategy to kill people? Hmmm...

  • jax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #117
The Putin/Trump approach to delegitimising the search for truth is to make it an aspect of team loyalty. News is "fake" or "mainstream", (supposedly just as bad), not because they failed in the process, but because they are not Team Trump. Thus truth will have no inherent advantage over falsehood. Whichever suits the team narrative wins, we get alternative truths.

Now journalists have not always been the best exponents of truth. First of all "news" is by nature different from information. News have to be "new" and emotionally engaging, so you generally miss the real and important changes, as they are filtered out. Most news channels are for-profit, or for-ideology. While journalists are taught to make that subservient to for-truth, in practice this is hard to achieve. Finally we have cultural blindness, or simply laziness. People, including journalists, are not used to see the world in a different way than they are accustomed to, and thus miss stories that could be obvious in hindsight. Add to that deadlines and that it is easier and usually more successful to follow an existing narrative than making up a new one, and most journalism will be bland.

Those shortcomings acknowledged, we are better served by incomplete inquiries and partial criticism of power, than none. Those in power know that, thus the continuous attacks on news media.

  • Mr. Tennessee
  • [*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #118
Is this where I vote for Trump?
 :o

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #119
Just fill out this circle: o.

  • jax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #120
Study shows two-thirds of U.S. terrorism tied to right-wing extremists

Quote
"A Quartz analysis of the database shows that almost two-thirds of terror attacks in the (United States) last year were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations," its posting says.
The remaining attacks, the web site said, "were driven by left-wing ideologies ... and Islamic extremism."
Globally, terrorist attacks dropped from about 17,000 in 2014 to about 11,000 in 2017, including a 40 percent decline in the Middle East, according to Quartz's analysis of the START data.
But the United States has seen a recent surge in terror-related violence, with 65 attacks last year, up from six in 2006, it said.


  • ensbb3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #121
Fortunately two-thirds of Trump supporters are too stupid to be effective terrorists... or much else.

  • jax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #122
Yes, if you are going to have terrorists, you want them to be stupid.

Just like the second-generation ISIL as the first generation got killed. Yes, that looney wolf decentralised terrorism make them harder to prevent or predict, but that is offset by an incompetence that make them as likely to get killed as to kill some bystanders.

Yet, how stupid and deluded can you get? Jade Helm, Pizzagate, Q Anon, connected to older, but still idiotic, ideas like white genocide.  It is the idiocracy/infowarification/infantilisation of terrorism, the slenderman for the grown-up and still confused.

Old-style terrorism may be deranged and vile, but at least it had a theory. Down with the king, up with my religion, we want to rule this piece of land, the dictatorship of the proletariat, lynching or pogroms of uppity minorities, urban guerrilla, even kill them because they are not kind to animals or they are performing abortions.

American McVeigh, Saudi bin Laden, Norwegian Behring Breivik may have been deranged, but they had a logic. "I want to become the king instead of the king. The Americans are protecting the king. Let us start a global meaningless war to exhaust the Americans so that they will no longer support the king. Then we will get rid of him." or "Muslim immigrants are the enemy. They want to take over Europe from within. We can't attack the enemy, because then they will get sympathy. Let us instead map out the traitors, we could for instance class them into categories A, B, and C. Then we will kill these traitors or their children until they support Muslims no more. Then we will start killing Muslims." Ridiculously complicated, breathtakingly bloody-minded, but you can see where they are going. 

But: "Let me murder some peaceful old Jews because there is a small group of people fleeing their Central American homeland, who are secretly Muslim terrorists who will somehow cross the US border to commence white genocide"?

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #123
Study shows two-thirds of U.S. terrorism tied to right-wing extremists

Quote
"A Quartz analysis of the database shows that almost two-thirds of terror attacks in the (United States) last year were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations," its posting says.
The remaining attacks, the web site said, "were driven by left-wing ideologies ... and Islamic extremism."
Globally, terrorist attacks dropped from about 17,000 in 2014 to about 11,000 in 2017, including a 40 percent decline in the Middle East, according to Quartz's analysis of the START data.
But the United States has seen a recent surge in terror-related violence, with 65 attacks last year, up from six in 2006, it said.
Yes, the wave of Islamic terrorism ídoes seem to have spawned a resurgence of home grown terrorism, but not just in America of course. One could cite non-Islamic groups in many countries ... Russia, Spain, UK, Sweden, Germany and so on. One might be able to find a clear cause and effect there.  Action and Reaction.
Just recently, in the UK , MI5 has taken over the fight against "Right Wing" terrorism, although why the term "Right Wing" is used seems simplistic. Top, Bottom, Left of Right  ... Terrorism is Terrorism.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/28/mi5-lead-battle-against-uk-rightwing-extremists-police-action

  • jax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Everything Trump…
Reply #124
Islamists and right-wing terror groups (the European version anyway) share world view, terror theory, and to some extent even ideals. They just disagree on which team to win in the post-democratic society.

It seems to be a sensible reorganisation, btw. In Sweden it has partly been delegated to local counties, not a clever idea.