Trump Consciousness

Okay, if you are talking about the lie promulgated by Communists that they will care for the poor and improve justice for all, then I'll accept those things are connected to Communism. Not that Communism ever achieves those things or even tries very hard to do it but that they promise it. The lie of it is what separates Communism from Jesus.
Agreed. Jesus provided the template to strive for.
 

The beginning of the video, where James talks about Trump supporters (and similarly-thinking people in the other parts of the political spectrum), is the reason to put this video here.
 
Last edited:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/01/08/iran-blinks-point-trump/

The dust is settling on Iran’s retaliatory missile attack on two Iraqi air bases. We are seven days into what we are told is war with Iran.​
But what is it, the start of a massive, catastrophic war, or the end of one? Let’s do the math.​
The Iranians, engaged in what has been business as usual for the last 40 years, had a proxy militia launch missiles at an Iraqi base a couple of weeks ago, killing an American contractor. The United States, tired of this, responded by killing 25 members of the Iranian-backed Iraqi militia that launched the missiles. Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, who has overseen Iran’s exports of terrorism throughout the region for three decades, orders an attack on the U.S. embassy.
The United States kills him.
Spectacularly, with big explosions, in Baghdad, where Soleimani had just landed to personally oversee the exportation of more terror.​
...​
In this latest chapter of U.S.-Iranian relations, the mullahs had a problem. We had killed their top terror-export chief, who the American media won’t stop telling us was “revered.” So revered that 56 people were trampled to death at his funeral, in a repeat of the debacles at the funerals of Yasser Arafat and Ayatollah Khomeini. The mullahs had to do something.​
So they fired a dozen missiles at Iraqi air bases Tuesday night. We are told they killed no one.
And they tweeted out, “We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
Translation: “We’re all done. Please don’t shoot back!’
 
https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/01/08/iran-blinks-point-trump/

The dust is settling on Iran’s retaliatory missile attack on two Iraqi air bases. We are seven days into what we are told is war with Iran.​
But what is it, the start of a massive, catastrophic war, or the end of one? Let’s do the math.​
The Iranians, engaged in what has been business as usual for the last 40 years, had a proxy militia launch missiles at an Iraqi base a couple of weeks ago, killing an American contractor. The United States, tired of this, responded by killing 25 members of the Iranian-backed Iraqi militia that launched the missiles. Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, who has overseen Iran’s exports of terrorism throughout the region for three decades, orders an attack on the U.S. embassy.
The United States kills him.
Spectacularly, with big explosions, in Baghdad, where Soleimani had just landed to personally oversee the exportation of more terror.​
...​
In this latest chapter of U.S.-Iranian relations, the mullahs had a problem. We had killed their top terror-export chief, who the American media won’t stop telling us was “revered.” So revered that 56 people were trampled to death at his funeral, in a repeat of the debacles at the funerals of Yasser Arafat and Ayatollah Khomeini. The mullahs had to do something.​
So they fired a dozen missiles at Iraqi air bases Tuesday night. We are told they killed no one.
And they tweeted out, “We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
Translation: “We’re all done. Please don’t shoot back!’
With every incident like this, I gain more confident of President Trump. I mean, I'll bet he had advisors telling him to hit back after the last missile strike, but he isn't the kind of president who just does what he is advised to do - he is his own boss. Getting rid of the menace of Iran without war would be a massive success for Trump. This exchange must also have made NK a bit more wary. The threats of new weapons tests have not (yet at least) materialised.

David
 
Last edited:
Interesting when the right cherry pick when to trust the mainstream media/intelligence agencies.
I think much of the MSM have been taken over by a strange madness - oppose Trump at any cost. Likewise the intelligence agencies clearly have some dodgy people in them. Think back way before Trump even thought of becoming president, when the intelligence agencies (US and UK) used extremely poor information to put together the Weapons of Mass Destruction myth that cost us (US and Britain) a major war. The MSM went right along with that madness. You have to be selective with information sources like that.

Imagine how much better it would have been back then if we had dealt with Iraq in the way Trump is dealing with Iran.

The horrible warped standards of the MSM seem to be that starting a war that will kill vast numbers of innocent people and maim even more, is somehow more noble that seizing an opportunity and killing a man who would was bent on creating more mayhem and more justification for war. Trump's approach leaves innocent Iranians and innocent Americans (including ordinary soldiers on both sides) unharmed.

David
 
Last edited:
So far, so good. I think Trump actually looked presidential in his statement, and appears to have made it quite clear that he doesn't want war with Iran: he left the door open for future dialogue without in any sense caving in -- so different from Obama who sought to appease them with billions in cash on pallets. Billions which they then used to continue their terroristic expansionism and to kill Americans.

Scott Adams has so far called it all pretty well (see his last few videos here): he's predicted what would happen, and, fingers crossed, it will work out for the best. What's more, it looks like the American Left and its toady, the MSM, is increasingly being exposed as the bunch of unprincipled idiots that they've been for quite some time now. Never underestimate the devastating effects of TDS on its sufferers.

Whatever Trump does, however sensible it might seem, the knee-jerk reaction on the Left is to oppose him simply because he's the one doing it. It's all tremendously boring after a while: you know before anything's said that they will find nothing to compliment Trump. Every single action will be condemned, regardless of its effectiveness. In fact, in the Left's eyes, Trump is incapable of doing absolutely anything worthwhile.

Look, the man ain't perfect: far from it. But he's not totally without merit, in fact in certain areas like the economy and now Iranian policy, he's demonstrating skill and considerable forbearance. Had Obama done what Trump's done, he would have been lauded to the skies. It's all so childish, so full of jealousy and sour grapes, and I think more and more Americans are seeing that right now.
 
I understand your point and agree with much of it. However, castigating a group as childish while not including Trump in that same group just isn't honest. He'd take a TON less heat if he wasn't a childish ass himself.

Democrats have opposed Republican presidents in the past just as the reverse has been true. Both parties and certainly both extremes are equally guilty. Trump brought it to a new level by himself as he is the only new variable.

I agree its tiring. I also think its polarizing, something I am concerned with. Yet at every turn, the Greta Thornberg tweet being the most recent, Trump finds some unnecessary way to double down on juvenile behavior. You felt like he's acted "presidential" recently. Maybe he can keep it up, for all our sakes?
 
Well, it seems that the USA-Iran war has ended before it started. Regional (at least...) bloodbath is cancelled.

First and foremost, we should thank Iranians, who, once again, shown notable restraint, openness to negotiation and willingness to resolve conflicts in a non-mass-murderous way, limiting themselves to a purely symbolic "retaliation" that killed or maimed no one (apparently). Remembering that one of the leading figures of their state was assassinated, their restraint is in fact heroic.

And - now matter how I dislike it, I have to give Trump his dues as well: he did not responded to Iran's symbolic "retaliation" (as for now), thus stopping the cycle of violence that could lead to a full-blown war. One should still remember, however, that it was Trump who performed the original act of war that could have lead to a regional-scale warfare, but did not because of Iranians' remarkable goodwill.
 
Last edited:
I understand your point and agree with much of it. However, castigating a group as childish while not including Trump in that same group just isn't honest. He'd take a TON less heat if he wasn't a childish ass himself.

Democrats have opposed Republican presidents in the past just as the reverse has been true. Both parties and certainly both extremes are equally guilty. Trump brought it to a new level by himself as he is the only new variable.

I agree its tiring. I also think its polarizing, something I am concerned with. Yet at every turn, the Greta Thornberg tweet being the most recent, Trump finds some unnecessary way to double down on juvenile behavior. You felt like he's acted "presidential" recently. Maybe he can keep it up, for all our sakes?
I give you a modicum of credit for moderating whatever degree of TDS you might possess; I can at least have a conversation with you.

Has it ever occurred to people that Trump came into office with little political experience, and that he's been learning on the job? And if the deranged (childish) on the left hadn't from the very first moment been so insanely against anything and everything he said and did just because it was him, he might have started to become less brash and more presidential sooner? Say whatever you like about Trump, I don't think he can be accused of lacking guts and perseverance.

Like it or lump it, for better or worse, he's the president, a title he won fair and square within the limitations of the US electoral system. The mature thing for the Dems to have done would have been to accept that and at least given him a chance. I'm not interested whether or not the Republicans have behaved similarly in the past (they did rather hound Clinton, for instance): what matters is Trump and what's happening now. If the Republicans behaved childishly in the past, that's no excuse for the Dems behaving childishly now.

I'd like for all politicians, of whatever stripe, to behave like adults. Currently, in my view it is the Dems who are the most irresponsible and childish. Maybe in time that will change, but we're here and now and I'm calling things as I see them.
 
And - now matter how I dislike it, I have to give Trump his dues as well: he did not responded to Iran's symbolic "retaliation" (as for now), thus stopping the cycle of violence that could lead to a full-blown war. One should still remember, however, that it was Trump who performed the original act of war that could have lead to a regional-scale warfare, but did not because of Iranians' remarkable goodwill.
Good lord, what a pusilanimous, perverted interpretation -- typical of TDS.

Let me state this unequivocably: TRUMP, IN KILLING SOLEIMANI, DID NOT COMMIT AN ACT OF WAR. He acted lawfully and completely within his purview as the leader of the executive branch. To have gone to war, he'd have had to have asked for congressional approval.

Also, you've got things arse about face: it isn't that the Iranians are showing "remarkable goodwill", but that they've been acting appallingly for years, and Trump is the one who is showing forbearance. He's taken a calculated risk, and it seems to have paid off. The reason they haven't retaliated more seriously is because they're shit scared of what might happen if they do. Trump has called them out and allowed them to make a purely symbolic response in order to help them save a little face by making a "proportionate response" as they called it.

It's amazing how you don't see that the original "act of war" has nothing to do with Trump; one can trace the history all the way back to the Americans and British installing the Shah of Iran in 1941 in a coup. Then he was deposed in 1979 and replaced by the theocratic Ayatollah Khomeini. Since then, the Iranians have become increasingly bothersome, and, thanks to Soleimani, have fomented unrest all over the middle east. Obama sought to appease them, but all that did was give them the green light to become more brazen in their expansionist activities.

The theocratic leadership is composed of Shi'ite Twelvers (check them out at Wikipedia), and they believe it is their duty to subjugate anyone and anything that opposes them. The general Iranian populace is much more moderate on balance, but these theocrats are resolutely anti-Western, and allowing them to develop nuclear capability is asking for trouble. They are the only group I can think of that would actually employ nuclear weapons on a point of principle if they had them, even if it inevitably lead to their extinction (except of course, they think they would be victorious, which is what is truly frightening about them) -- see here:

Iran’s leadership comprises a group of extreme fanatical Muslims who believe that their messianic times have arrived. Though Russia and the US both had nuclear weapons, it was clear that they would never use them because of MAD. Each side knew it would be destroyed if it would attack the other. But with these people in Iran, MAD is not a deterrent factor, but rather an inducement. They feel that they can hasten the final messianic process. This is an extremely dangerous situation of which it is important to be aware.

In short, they're a bunch of headbangers who actually look forward to instigating a nuclear war so that their religion will win out. At the same time, the only thing that's keeping them from trying to do that is whatever doubts they might have that now is the right time. As long as they have no nuclear capability, those doubts will persist. Ergo, Trump is right in denying them that capability; and Obama was insanely wrong in giving them billions in trying to persuade them not to develop it. They don't think like most rational people.

Hopefully, in the long run, the theocracy will be deposed from within, and Iran will be restored to sanity. Trump in my view is completely right in keeping them in check pending such an outcome. Meanwhile, the present Ayatollah is probably breathing a sigh of relief that Soleimani is dead, because that means he's more likely the principal leader. When Soleimani was still alive, he may have had to play second fiddle to him.
 
Last edited:
And - now matter how I dislike it, I have to give Trump his dues as well: he did not responded to Iran's symbolic "retaliation" (as for now), thus stopping the cycle of violence that could lead to a full-blown war. One should still remember, however, that it was Trump who performed the original act of war that could have lead to a regional-scale warfare, but did not because of Iranians' remarkable goodwill.
Wasn't the original act of war performed by Qasem Soleimani - assorted murders and the attack on the US embasy in Iraq?

David
 
Let me state this unequivocably: TRUMP, IN KILLING SOLEIMANI, DID NOT COMMIT AN ACT OF WAR. He acted lawfully and completely within his purview as the leader of the executive branch...
Other than parroting the White House spin doctors, do you have any legal expertise in this area?

I hope so because I’d like to know the specific conditions where one nation can legally assassinate a high ranking official of another nation state, and how those conditions were met?

The rest of your post highlights the some of the dangers of extreme supernatural god based regimes, and why the world needs less magical thinking.
 
So now you trust the MSM and intelligence services?
I don't follow your reasoning!
I hope so because I’d like to know the specific conditions where one nation can legally assassinate a high ranking official of another nation state, and how those conditions were met?
It doesn't seem to me that international law at this level means anything. Bush and Blair have never been prosecuted for the war crime of starting a war without just cause. There was presumably no way in which Iran or Soleimani could be prosecuted for all the things they have done (and conceivably found not guilty if it is shown that these attacks did not happen under his direction) - but one or other should obviously be tried. International law at this level is simply used or not used based on pragmatic considerations.

Goodness, I don't suppose Trump will ever get legal redress for all the things said by the MSM that can be proven false!

David
 
I’d like to know the specific conditions where one nation can legally assassinate a high ranking official of another nation state, and how those conditions were met?
Well, if it wasn't legal, how more illegal was it for Obama to have authorised the assassination of American citizens on foreign soil? Or wasn't it, because Obama could do no wrong? Knock yourself out with legal arguments from that paragon of the left, the Guardian, or with the disaparate opinions on killing someone thought to be a high-ranking official here. Me, I'm sticking with my own opinion, parroted from no one, that what Trump did wasn't illegal, and certainly within the province of executive action.
 
Top