• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2017 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The real question is can he have delusion filled tweets and still govern? I say he can if the democrats would confirm his people. Resist, we munch!
 
David Wooderson said:
You do a disservice to all of those negatively effected by ACTUAL nazis and by being the little snowflake that cried nazi.....you do ACTUAL neo nazis a favor by dismissing what they ACTUALLY are. Vacation in Russia much? Do you even know what an actual neo nazi looks like anymore?

People like yourself should move to Sweden or Venezuela.

People like yourself are going to make fascism and nationalism glamorous.
Click to expand...
Considering his views and the fact he has linked and is a member of stormfront i am quite within my rights to make the neo nazi comment.

And after your last meltdown any comment from you is laughable. Dreamt about running over innocent people lately that dont share your perverse views?
 
consumer said:
Dreamt about running over innocent people lately that dont share your perverse views?
Click to expand...

If you're causing riots and blocking traffic thinking your ideology is stronger than my car....imo you're not exactly innocent ;)

All modern ppl ar taught to look before you cross the street, if someone's "cause" (blind hatred) is more important than their health don't blame me when I legally plow through them......in TN....if the legislation passes.
 
David Wooderson said:
Christ on a bike.
I'm joking for crying out loud.
I find the entire situation insane.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You've gone out of your way on multiple occasions to express support for violence against protesters (unless that was when your account was "hacked" |:). Your backpedaling is not fooling me or anyone else.
 
cashfl0w_d0nkey said:
I think the reference to McCarthyism does make sense. For example, McCarthy did investigate the Army and Department of State on baseless accusations of foreign infiltration. This is what Trump is claiming is being done against him. However, in this situation, the accusations are not baseless, but based on clear evidence of potential illegal activity. Also, Trump is not being bullied by a demagogue, but is himself the demagogue in this situation.

Two things here: First, who should be doing the investigating of Presidents if not the "deep state"? If Congress wants to look into actions of the President, it needs an official apparatus to do so. Relying on journalists for this purpose is entirely illogical, as they have no authority to investigate or charge anyone with offenses. Second, Washington DC isn't a place with a singular power structure. Far from it, it is the epicenter of countless competing power structures from around the world. When someone gains the most powerful position in the city and then attempts to throw wrenches in every direction with wild abandon, he is absolutely going to get powerful entities opposing him. I don't think there is any argument that can be made about why this shouldn't be, as it is obviously going to be the case.
Click to expand...

What I am speaking of isn't, or didn't begin as, although it is almost certainly from the beginning hoping to provoke, an "official apparatus" of Congress, it's member of the IC (I would assume the CIA and FBI) both going through journalists to manipulate Congress, or, if you want to see it this way, give Congress the opportunity to, go after the President; it is clearly an organized effort. I don't imagine the "deep state" of course as a single entity, nor is the U.S. government, or even any given agency, or even "the White House," or any two men in a room for that matter, they are all a bunch of moving and sometimes conflicting parts. Some of Trump's issues involve bad decisions and betrayals from within. Congress and in particular the Republicans are in chaos about Trump. There is a lot of "spooky" intervention going on here, on both ends, it seems, but my point here is that it is painfully obvious that powerful elements in the deep state are seizing or have seized the opportunity to do in Trump like they did in Nixon, as opposed to JFK, another situation entirely, although I mentioned it as well as a deep-state intervention against the presidency, but in a very different situation politically, including the president in question's popularity. I would assume that you are not a fan of Nixon and you've made it clear you're not a fan of Trump, I might venture to guess that you admire JFK, but anyway—does the fact that an almost totally invisible, ungovernable and unaccountable invisible hand is attacking presidents, whatever your opinion of them, not give you trouble? It is to say the least profoundly undemocratic.

What you say in the end is interesting, though;

cashfl0w_d0nkey said:
Viewing any similar historical situation in terms of the underlying power dynamics, there are basically two outcomes: the person in power gets overthrown, or the opposition gets suppressed. Both outcomes are terrible for democracy, and this is precisely why authoritarians and demagogues must never be elected.
Click to expand...

The beginning is more or less syllogistic to my political-realist mind but is an important truth contradicting what a lot of people imagine about our government being about "democratic pluralism" or what-not to any significant degree in terms of real change happening or people unacceptable to the already-ingrown power structure from Washington (and Langley and Quantico and Fort Meade, etc.) to New York to Boston to Hollywood to Silicon Valley to Alaska and Texas and everywhere else. Your syllogism then applies. Either the person in power gets overthrown, or the opposition gets suppressed. That's how it works, pretty much all over the world, isn't it? It's certainly how coups go, and my whole point in the post that started this particular discussion is that we presently are in a coup executed against Trump from within the IC/deep state with a helping hand from all sorts of others in the media and elsewhere.

Then you say "both outcomes are terrible for democracy," well, certainly so; what's going on now is bad for democracy, but I don't believe in democracy or democratic-republicanism anyway, either as something to be aspired to, or as a reality in the U.S. (we have elections, sure, but we don't really chose who governs us, the Presidency as an apparatus is something of a paradox, it's increasingly powerful but also the President, the man, is isolated and power-less in many ways, over the years. And from time to time the "deep state" has taken it upon themselves to overthrow presidents. I assume that you agree that this is a terrible outcome for democracy (i.e. agree with what I said before, that this is a profoundly undemocratic process.)

Suppression of the opposition? The opposition in this case being what? What's going on here certainly isn't popular opposition, although it's encouraged and enabled by it in terms of feedback-loop propaganda that's being thrown out by the opposition that's actually taking the concrete actions against Trump, these being the profoundly undemocratic ones. Suppressing them got Kennedy killed. If you subscribe to that, which I think is not a very radical thing to say. Even if you believe otherwise as you say the government is a complex machine; as I said before it is sort of a beast, with a mind of it's own, or a hive-mind or a bunch of contradictory minds but it is a wild beast for the President or anyone else to ride, and the very blackest of it's beating, undemocratic heart right now is attacking Trump. Neither of us like Trump. But you must admit that this is problematic, yes?

Your last statement is a paradox, but a profoundly interesting one—

Both outcomes are terrible for democracy, and this is precisely why authoritarians and demagogues must never be elected.

1. We must preserve democracy
2. An anti-democratic regimé would be bad for democracy
3. We must never elect an anti-democratic regimé

#3 and #1 clearly conflict logically, as the statement itself is anti-democratic; although I assume you're speaking in a moral sense, in the sense that you'd oppose a statement like "Hitler did nothing wrong […legally, undemocratically]" or the Caesar's actions in 46 BC seizing and prolonging the dictatorship along with dominating the tribunate and the Senate on the road from Republic to Empire were legal and democratic, more or less, the people loved him anyway, as they did Hitler.

It's a paradox of democracy. Democracy cannot tolate undemocracy (a monarchist party running in the elections that wishes to establish a King and do away with elections); liberalism cannot tolerate illiberalism (hence the whole PC/SJW language- and thought-policing and indoctrination business), they both generate their opposites for that very reason.

And if Trump is seen as a potential tyrant, than this palace coup is more analagous to what they call the "guardian coup," perhaps. The benign kind. If there is such a thing. Is there such a thing?

But it is a coup.

Are you OK with that?

If you tolerate this… etc.

Now, I've said before that I would like to see a full on tanks-in-the-streets bankers-hanging-from-lampposts coup in the U.S., that Jefferson quote about the tree of liberty being watered by blood, all that.

This is no that kind if coup. But this is backhanded spook fuckery perpetrated by the deep elements of the military-industrial-intelligence etc. complex and it's not just because Trump is distasteful on Twitter and representative of a movement within the Republican Party that the Party apparatus is not fond of. T

rump is being done in by furtive elements within the government, nominally his government. The focus on Russia is for good reason, and it's not just because those of us (I barely) who are old enough to remember being scared by watching Soviet ICBMs being rolled about on launcher-vehicles on TV may have a more than a bit of Russophobia in our blood, although that's a good propaganda move right there. (Although I'm rather quite a bit of a Russophile or at least "rootin' for Putin")

You could leave it there, and it should be troubling.

But also, and as far as I see it, most essentially, it's also a geopolitical thing. The "Pivot to Asia" is threatened. So they are going to take on the president, take on his populist appointments, and roll in conventional neoliberal-neoconservative Republicans as replacements.

This should be troubling.

Put away your Trump-hate for a moment; are you not troubled?

cashfl0w_d0nkey said:
The Chomsky article isn't saying that the world is laughing at the US because the press and people are stupid for buying into it. It says that the world is laughing at the US because the US has done the exact same thing to other countries around the world.
Click to expand...

Right—I'm saying more or less the same thing but it came out twisted maybe, or incomplete, in my post; what I'm saying is that the US press and people should be a laughingstock and gargantuan hypocrites because they think that this is a unique and special situation versus what happens all around the world all the time, often prompted by the US/USSR→now Russia, but the US really specialized in it. I do not buy into the idea that the Russians "stole the election" or any such idiocy; they did what anyone would do, tried to use propaganda (and only propaganda, no assassinations, no tanks in the streets or whatever, unlike so many Cold War era efforts and beyond) to influence the situation to promote a candidate who would seem to be a geopolitical advantage to them; the U.S. even has official and non-official government organizations like the CIA-front groups USAID and National Endowment for Democracy, and has been doing far worse in terms of manipulating democracy, and right on Russia's doorstep, in fact in what is, but for a line on a map, Russia, that is the recent and ongoing crisis in the Ukraine and ongoing skullduggery all around the ex-Soviet/Eastern Bloc states, as I said above, encircling Russia with hostility, not to say nuclear weapons—and compare this, and the reaction of the then-USSR to other incursions, to the U.S. reaction in the Cuban missile Crisis. The US is doing all sorts of manipulations here, in Latin America, in the Middle East … on every continent really. Much, much worse than what people are getting histrionic about Russia doing. That's the laugh.
 
consumer said:
The "you are out of your depth" comment is hilarious. SKL trys to come off as some kind of intellectual by writing tldr posts often using latin to give the illusion his fucked up view of the world has any substance. Real intellectuals can communicate their message in concise everyday language and dont add latin to appear to be smart. And his religious / moral credibility is laughable at best.

If anyone is out if their depth its him with his conspiracy theories and neo nazi beliefs.
Click to expand...

I am grateful for his addition of Latin. Latin is a language that many of ours stem from. Knowing it is extremely useful in knowing a lot more, because when you understand the parts, you better understand the whole.
 
If you want to read my thoughts about why I post the way I do, and what I think about being called a "nazi," and so forth, then open this up, and please, find somewhere else to discuss it, PM me and we'll open up our own thread if we need to, but let's not pollute this on-topic thread with this petty bullshit of drive-by single-sentence posts attacking me as a nazi or attacking religion or whatever. If you just want to talk about what's on topic, don't even bother opening the box; it's a TL;DR apologia for being TL;DR.

NSFW:
To be honest I don't even really realize if I'm using Latin, or New Yorker style diacritics, or if (something else people have made fun of me for) putting the accents on élite, débâcle, regimé… it's just the way I write and think. This happens to be an informal setting but I also happen to have written a lot in formal settings about politics, even have a publication or two and a few dozen people even cited me :| Not that it matters, not that my degree matters. What matters is what content I actually post here. Nec totum in epistulis scribendis Latinis. I bet most of you can even see exactly what that means without having to even consult Google. So too with whatever Latin (eo ipso, inter alia, whatever) I use, is all stuff any educated person should be able to write or read without missing a beat. So there's no pretension. I'm writing as if to an educated audience. And, fortunately, there's Google if you don't understand it, and then you'll have learned something. And I do have a tendency to long and dense posts, which is why when I write a paper (haven't done that in 10+ years) or do anything formal for students or whatever I need to edit the fuck out of it for run on sentences and such. I even have been told my notes in patient's charts are too long and detailed, but I resent the fact that, driven by billing, the medical world tends towards very concise notes, which are useless in my particular field of psychiatry, although maybe better in other settings; you need a lot of words to tell a patient's story, you need a lot of words to tell a political story or argue a political point.

Here, not so much, I tend to flow, stream of consciousness-like, even in hac epistula (;)) and many people, like consumer and so on, just skim and say "nazi, nazi" or conspiracy theory, stormfront, whatever, without any thought to refutation. Which honestly makes you look bad. Now, if we wanted to talk about, say, my views on the JFK assassination that I alluded to here, or any number of things which aren't germane to the topic (like the edgy teenage anti-religious stuff), that belongs elsewhere; if I don't respond, please drop me a PM and ask me to, that is, if you actually want conversation, not just to automatically slam the door on me because you've labelled me a "nazi" (which I am not, in anything close to the literal sense of the word, it's just a convenient epithet to throw at people who question certain orthodoxies of modern-day liberalism.) A better label would be illiberalist; even neo-fascist, in the very strict sense, with regards to some of my views about political economy, and so on, perhaps better national syndicalist; or better, more contemporary, meta-politically nouvelle droite, maybe, but not the closely related term "alt-right," that term has been hijacked both by people within the movement and outside of it to mean various things that it doesn't. I'm not telling you what to call me, I don't cry if you call me something else, but I'm strictly speaking to what you might more accurately call me. Not anything dogmatic, certainly, I've read my Marx and so on and much of the political literature on both sides, but I am not a dogmatic anything, I'm pragmatic. I have an affinity for what you might call Putinism, a lot of affinity for a lot of the "far-right" European movements, more than anything in American politics, anyway, but most importantly, I am pro-worker, pro-Church, identitarian, antibourgeois, antiequalitarian, and antiliberal. I am whatever you say I am, but I am what I am.


otherwise; please let's go ahead with the thread, on-topic, without personal attacks and petty dismissals of others views ("nazi" or "SJW" or whatever); I of course would like to hear more people's thoughts about the idea of the "palace coup" that's going on now, but, whatever it is, this is a discussion of Trump's presidency, and soon, likely, Trump's impeachment and the reëstablishment of the neoconservative-neoliberal "new world order" that has been ascendant since GHW Bush and WJ Clinton, with Trump having been only a flash in the pan of a movement that will continue to move and not be ignored, despite the fact that their much-hyped leader was only a shooting star. That's where I see all this going. How about you?
 
I don't think he was addressing that comment. I said that comment, specifically about the gas chamber, in frustration/exhaustion of explaining my reasoning, and being called "KKKNazi" for it, simply. I think it may have started with you trying to teach me about evolution (LOL). I'm not saying I love you, or that I am an angel that would save your life. Not going to virtue signal, but I have no real desire to shut you up via a gas chamber.
 
Also, continuing to bring it up to redirect back to it isn't helpful. Not that you have shown the desire to be helpful, so I guess my expectation would be my fault.
 
I've been getting a certain amount of perverse enjoyment from watching the latest Trump Twitter antics (in regards to Obama G. Gordon Liddy-ing Trump Tower). I keep waiting for him to get on television and finally confess that this entire foray into political life was merely done "for the lolz". It's the only explanation that makes sense at this point...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top