Trump Consciousness

Cross-posted from the Kevin Annett podcast thread:

I love that you are still trying to figure out if Trumps a bad guy.

I don't so much see him as a "bad guy" as so self-interested that he will use whatever tactics work to make money, gain reputation, and gain power, regardless of whether those tactics are ethical or not. This is a man who has ripped people off left, right, and centre to make money, but who then runs for president as a man of the people. This is a man who lies shamelessly, time and time again, and makes promises that he doesn't keep, but who then claims to be an outsider to politics and thus more trustworthy than the usual political class. In essence, I don't see him as competent enough to be a true villain, just so ethically compromised through his own vanity that he lacks the integrity to be a true force for good.
 
https://thebl.com/politics/presiden...-has-ever-done-said-a-jamaican-immigrant.html

President Trump ‘is doing more for African Americans than any other president has ever done,’​

screen-shot-2019-11-28-at-10-53-27-am-700x366.png



A Jamaican immigrant, who owns a business in Queens, explained that after former President Barack Obama failed to meet the expectations of African Americans, President Donald J. Trump has become the best option for people in her community, Fox News reported.​
“I voted for President Obama. I did so with the hopes that he would do more for African Americans,” recalled Scherie Murray, who is now seeking the Republican nomination for the 14th District of New York to face controversial Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2020.​
“I thought that [Obama] would … be the one to reverse some of the layers of Joe Biden’s crime bill, but he didn’t. He was weak on criminal justice reform,” she said in Fox Nation’s “No Interruption with Tomi Lahren.”​
“President Trump came in,” she continued, “and delivered the First Step Act. Now he’s onto the Second Step Act. Not only has he delivered on his promise to the American people, but he’s doing more for African Americans than any other president has done in my lifetime,” Murray said.​
 
I don't think Skeptiko is the better for allowing such political threads, which are not even within its remit, to exist.
Um, where do we go to read about this remit?

If you continue to challenge other people's right to post what they like here, I am going to act - final warning.

I can't read everything, so if anyone feels challenged in this way, please report the relevant post.

David
 
Gee, David, you are starting to sound like me. Yes the Americans did stage an 'incident' in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. Are you now saying the Americans staged the gas attack? This is what the Russians are claiming.
I suspect that the Neo Cons did so indirectly - via the the 'democratic' opposition to Assad in Syria. Yes.

You see - when we get off Trump himself we more or less agree politically!

Now, you are not telling me that the latest gas attack was staged to help President Trump, or that the ones while Obama was in power were staged to help President Obama - are you?

These beastly incidents were staged to drag America into a really big war in Syria, probably involving Russia as well. Both Trump and Obama had the gumption to sidestep the invitation to start a major escalation in Syria.

Indeed the whole war in Syria - with all its ghastly suffering - happened because the US decided to arm a band of opponents to Assad. We all know who was at the state department when that happened, and she was the one who probably masterminded this process. Unfortunately Obama did let that process start even though I don't think it was what he wanted - he has to take responsibility for the resultant bloodshed. We would have Hillary as POTUS by now if it were not for Trump!

Perhaps you need to think less about Trump himself, and more about what the anti-Trump crowd would like to achieve - a return to the status quo - where every few yeas or so, the US kicks off yet another horrible and dangerous war - supposedly on high moral grounds.

I value Trump because he doesn't want to do this, and has said so.

David
 
Precisely my response to Hannity et al.

What I was trying to point out, is that while other media outlets have hidden this devastating conclusion about the 'gas attacks', the truth has actually emerged from Fox News. If CNN has discussed this, please show me!

I don't know if CNN covered it.You seem surprised or impressed it was on Fox. I don't recall which of the multiple news outlets I check in on had the story. Do you think these stories are not covered on other channels? Why?

Okay I had look on Google and didn't find anything from CN after 10 pages. But I did find that the story was widely covered in mainstream media and picked up by a range of specialist political and fact checking sites. I made a quick selection of links and they are below.

It seems that some folk think the story about faking the gas attacks is fake. I haven't read the content in great detail - just scanned it. It seems that if you are Pro Russian you accept the claim the gas attacks were fakes perpetrated to give the UK and the US permission to attack Syria. I presume Fox was attacking this outrageous claim by the Russians? If you are anti-Russian you believe the Russians are lying. And if you are fair minded you go digging to figure out what was going on.

The story is/was very widely covered. I presume CNN didn't show up in the top ten pages because few people searched it. There were a whole bunch of US sites - cable and print and internet listed - so whether the story was given major coverage seems to depend what other stores were around - and how it was assessed. Probably the fair minded line could have been - this is what is claimed but it is complex and must be fact checked.

Was the gas attack faked? What is the basis for your assessment?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-furore-alleged-poison-gas-attack-Assad.html



https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018...k-filmed-syria-russian-military-claims-a62849



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...atchdog-opcw-defends-syria-report-after-leaks



https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...5b76b6-b363-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-13/russia-says-syria-chemical-attack-staged/9657314



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46490497



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-accuses-uk-of-staging-fake-chemical-attack-syria/



https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...evidence-of-syria-chemical-attacks-was-faked/



https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/putin-says-expects-fake-gas-attacks-to-discredit-syrias-assad.html



https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-this-proof-white-helmets-staged-chemical-attack/



https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/chemical-attack-syria-sorting-truth-propaganda



https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...en-online-theories-doubting-syrian-gas-attac/



https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/russia-syria-fake-news/557660/



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._was_falsely_blamed_for_chemical_attacks.html


Michael, did you look at the links I posted on the thread before? Since it is crystal clear now - for anyone who wants to know - that the incident WAS staged, for the purpose of further escalation of conflict and an additional propagandist "justification" of it.
 
suspect that the Neo Cons did so indirectly - via the the 'democratic' opposition to Assad in Syria. Yes.

Suspect? Evidence to support such a suspicion?

These beastly incidents were staged to drag America into a really big war in Syria, probably involving Russia as well. Both Trump and Obama had the gumption to sidestep the invitation to start a major escalation in Syria.

You can't draw an equivalence with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. That was the US. Who staged the 'fake gas attacks' in an effort to draw the US into an escalation? If the US reacted to the 'alleged attacks' is any measured way, you can't go claiming that the 'staging' was designed to elicit a greater response.

So I am not clear on who you think 'staged' the attack and what they expected to get out of it.

Indeed the whole war in Syria - with all its ghastly suffering - happened because the US decided to arm a band of opponents to Assad. We all know who was at the state department when that happened, and she was the one who probably masterminded this process. Unfortunately Obama did let that process start even though I don't think it was what he wanted - he has to take responsibility for the resultant bloodshed. We would have Hillary as POTUS by now if it were not for Trump!

I suggest you read America's War for the Greater Middle East and The Management of Savagery before you go opining on whether Clinton "probably masterminded this process". I would really appreciate it if you cited your sources that lead to your opinions. It would make for a more informative discussion for readers - who are just getting my side.

It is rather difficult arguing against such partisan POVs. While I have never been a fan of Clinton, I am not now so sure she was a worse choice than Trump.

Perhaps you need to think less about Trump himself, and more about what the anti-Trump crowd would like to achieve - a return to the status quo - where every few yeas or so, the US kicks off yet another horrible and dangerous war - supposedly on high moral grounds.

I value Trump because he doesn't want to do this, and has said so.

I don't know what the score is in terms of whether Ds or Rs have started the most wars. But if you imagine that Trump has the ability to prevent another dumb American incursion you are granting a grub the powers of a butterfly. It is certainly true that so long as the Russians have him by the balls he won't initiate any action that is detrimental to Russian interests - until things go so horribly wrong there is no choice.

The idea that Trump is a 'safe pair of hands' for American and global security is so risible it should come with a health warning. Personally I am quite content that Trump has so wrecked the US credibility the idea that POTUS is the Leader of the Free World is now just a hideous bad memory. As a member of that 'Free World" I am grateful to see the end of American adventurism - if it really happens. But I fear the US will just end up playing with the Saudis and Israel and continue the US tradition of completely screwing up the Middle East. I have no problem with a multi-polar world. But I am concerned when the nation that is most armed to the teeth has to go looking for friends after pissing off it allies. Trump's penchant for despots has not gone unnoticed. Has the US commenced the downhill slide to becoming the enemy of the free world? That's a serious question that is being asked -and not just by the Russians.

Trump, as a man, is not competent to be the chief executive of the US. You suggest not attending to Trump and heeding the anti-Trumpers on the grounds that they constitute a greater risk. Can I politely suggest a little less of the sugar hit of Fox and a lot more of a balance diet of actual inquiry? Lest you [and others] think I am offensive to you, I will be happy to receive a recitation of the sources you rely on to craft your POV. All you have contributed so far is an admonishment to watch Fox. That's not enough,
 
Michael, did you look at the links I posted on the thread before? Since it is crystal clear now - for anyone who wants to know - that the incident WAS staged, for the purpose of further escalation of conflict and an additional propagandist "justification" of it.

I didn't. I had read that it was. I was focused on David's argument, since he seems to have relied only on Fox. I am open to counter arguments, because I had relied on one source as well, at that stage. Now David sent me looking on Google I noted sources that I generally respect supporting that POV. But I must confess I haven't yet done as thorough a review of the sources as I would like - so I could assert with strong confidence that the fake was a fake. However, based on a hasty survey that is how I am leaning - I am confident. but not yet strongly so.
 

"At the recent Trump rally in Cincinnati, Ohio Millie Weaver challenges some of the protesters to walk with her over to see if Trump supporters are as bad as the mainstream media says. After several attempts, Millie meets Marcos, a black American, who takes her up on the challenge.

Marcos believes President Trump and his supporters are racist and that if he goes inside the event he will be attacked and told to leave. However, wat ends up happening is amazing and will leave you speechless."
"Love trumps hate", nice sentiment, but the reality is that Trump loves hate.
 
Back
Top