The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
We've been telling farmers we'll "make it up to them" for ages now... meanwhile, a gallon of diesel is high, the selling price of corn and grain is fairly low, and we pay many farmers more not to farm a field ... go figure
 
Kittamaru said:
We've been telling farmers we'll "make it up to them" for ages now... meanwhile, a gallon of diesel is high, the selling price of corn and grain is fairly low, and we pay many farmers more not to farm a field ... go figure
Click to expand...
That sounds like a US or Canadian thing. I never heard of anyone "making it up" to farmers" over here.

I think there may be similar schemes in the EU but am am very unfamiliar with them although I think the strength of the farming lobby has been a bone of contention between the UK** and the French down the years since the UK tends to have larger farms than the French ( and probably those of other countries too).

The EU's "butter mountain" and the "wine lake" have been causes for annoyance in the UK for a long time (presumably intended to keep prices artificially high for producers)

**not sure that the French give two figs so perhaps "bone of contention" is a bit misleading.
 
geordief said:
What could he have in mind?
Click to expand...

He need not have anything particular in mind. The underlying point is essentially to break government and society severely enough to fulfill longstanding conservative prophecy. It's not so much a conspiracy as a mass tendency toward certain vaguely predictable behavior. What we see in the current rise of the far right is a response to the decline of traditional empowerment disparity.

Consider, for instance, that if Republicans wreck the farm bill, the health insurance market, civil rights law, environmental regulation, &c., rebuilding all these things under Democratic power will still require "compromise" and "bipartisanship", by which insecure entrenched power might attempt to reinforce their trenches or perhaps dig new ones. The most coldly mechanistic and capitalistic expression I can offer is that if an entity has enough money to ride the hard part, profit after the new threshold will justify the investment. Who knows; if Republicans break society badly enough and the populist conservative blocs hew to power as they traditionally do, maybe Montesano and ADM can officially own your right to food security or not. I mean, shit, look at the compromises Democrats calculated just to get here.

I wonder how big the Democrats have to be before absolute schism; probably big enough to still win a presidential election. But that's the problem; historically the "moderates" of the petit-bourgeois side with the bourgeois; we call them serious people when they do that.

Or maybe this time the larger bloc will turn out to be the progressive left, and the DLC conservocrats can flounder and make their decisions about soccon tinfoil bedfellows and rightist coalitions.

Right.

(chortle!)

But, no, really, Trump doesn't need a plan.

This is the GOP doing The Aristocrats as a means of proving once and for all that government just doesn't work. And the reason conservatives want to prove that government doesn't work is that "America" just doesn't work for them if it means nonwhites, nonchristians, women, and queers actually get a real chance at the American dream.

(Hey, did anyone ever notice how American "Jew" jokes often describe WASP stereotypes? Even the one about the boy distracted by his first real erection and walking into the wall; you know, and he breaks his nose? I mean, yeah, Jewish nose and WASP little-dick stereotypes, but the point of the Jew joke is to get everyone to look away from whatever annoys American-WASP cultural self-love, or traditionalism lending to the "Protestant Ethic" described by Weber in relation to the "Spirit of Capitalism". Like the punch line, "Because air is free." Sure, it makes for another easy nose joke, but American old money is still pissed off they couldn't charge people for breathing; free air is just so marxist.)​

The point is to break everything. Notice, for instance, how they're surprised when some stupid thing they try gets rebuffed in the courts; it has something to do with believing their own excrement about imperial liberals getting away with everything; that the other side did it, whether they did or not, is the justification for the current administration.
 
Tiassa said:
He need not have anything particular in mind. .
Click to expand...
Agreed to the extent that we give the man himself too much attention by analysing whatever comes out of any of what passes for an orifice (needs must) ...but perhaps what he had in mind is how it might sound to his imaginary theatre audience (who actually exist)

Yes he will "make it up to them" ** if they believe that.

Thanks for immunizing me against those "jokes". Humour is a weapon on all sides.

A sign of hope is the apparent steep rise of female candidacy in the coming mid terms (and that Trump et al's current legal travails may finally show him up to his imaginary audience)

** can't be thinking of his "pardon" weapon ,can he?
 
Last edited:
Something that's been obvious all along, but has to be slid in under the radar:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/...ad-idx=5&src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=c
“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
Click to expand...
Background:
https://www.prri.org/research/white...nomy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/

Note that both of those studies took partisanship for granted - simply being a Republican needed no explanation - and even then the simple economic stuff dissipated in the numbers.
That base is the core of his power and possible invulnerability.
 
Any thoughts on the so called "honesty" bill? What exactly are they trying to do here?
 
Kind of surprised no one is discussing this... Why include that studies need to be reproducible in the epa's so called honesty bill? It seems like that goes without saying.. Who will be making the decision as to whether certain research is replicable? How will they make that determination? Lets say somebody doesnt like what a particular study has to say. Can they then pull out their own group of independent "scientists" who are paid to fail to reproduce the original research?
 
zgmc said:
Kind of surprised no one is discussing this... Why include that studies need to be reproducible in the epa's so called honesty bill?
Click to expand...
As with the requirement that all raw data be publicly reviewable and the shifting of research scientists without corporate ties to desk jobs distant from their fields, the goal is to prevent oversight or interference with corporate exploitation of the environment, and limit corporate liability for harm done.
 
Donald Avenetti has recently implied - in an interview somewhere - that Broidy may not be the Cohen client of the 1.6 million settlement - pointing out that only Hannity and Trump were named in open court.

The plop thickens.
 
#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​

Something just happened. Law firm Avenatti & Associates has dropped a new report, Project Sunlight (pdf)↱ regarding its intelligence in the Stephanie Clifford ("Stormy Daniels") case.

• From October 2016 through January 2018, Mr. Cohen used his First Republic account to engag in suspicious financial transactions totaling $4,425,033.46.

• Chief among these suspicious financial transactions are approximately $500,000 in payments received from Mr. Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian Oligarch with an estimated net worth of nearly $13 Billion. Mr. Vekselberg and his cousin Mr. Andrew Intrater routed eight payments to Mr. Cohen through a company named Columbus Nova LLC ("Columbus") beginning in January 2017 and continuing until at least August 2017.​

The Daily Beast↱ has confirmed:

The Daily Beast can confirm that Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen received hundreds of thousands of dollars from a company controlled by Putin-aligned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. The allegations were initially made by Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels' lawyer. According to a dossier published by Avenatti on Tuesday evening, "Vekselberg and his cousin Mr. Andrew Intrater routed eight payments to Mr. Cohen through a company named Columbus Nova LLC beginning in January 2017 and continuing until at least August 2017."​

__________

Notes:

Avenatti & Associates. "Executive Summary". Project Sunlight. 8 May 2018. DropBox.com. 8 May 2018. http://bit.ly/2KKi1iB

Schactman, Noah. "Michael Cohen Took Cash From Russian Oligarch After Election". The Daily Beast. 8 May 2018. TheDailyBeast.com. 8 May 2018. https://thebea.st/2HZcQNQ
 
#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​

Oh, right. We already know Vexelberg's name because the Special Counsel's Office has already questioned him.

No, really, I can't keep up with all this:

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators have questioned a Russian oligarch about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after the election, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Viktor Vekselberg, chairman of asset manager Renova Group, is an oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, and last month the Trump administration placed him on a list of sanctioned Russians for activities including election interference. The purpose of the payments, which predate the sanctions, and the nature of the business relationship between Vekselberg and Cohen is unclear.

The scrutiny of the payments could add to the legal troubles for Cohen, whose home and office were raided last month as part of a criminal investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan. In court documents, the prosecutors said at least part of their inquiry stemmed from a referral from Mueller's office.

The questions asked of Vekselberg suggest that Mueller investigators have been examining some of Cohen's business relationships as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Vekselberg is one of two Russian oligarchs the FBI stopped earlier this year after their private jets landed in New York-area airports as part of Mueller's investigation.

Investigators also asked Vekselberg about donations the head of his US affiliate made to Trump's inaugural fund and campaign funds, sources said.

(Scannell and Prokupecz↱)​
____________________

Notes:

Scannell, Kara and Shimon Prokupecz. "Mueller's team questions Russian oligarch about payments to Cohen". CNN. 8 May 2018. CNN.com. 8 May 2018. https://cnn.it/2ruzXVo
 
pjdude1219 said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-reveal-iran-deals-fate-amid-low-hopes-041031763.html

so trumpy went ahead and bailed on the iran nuclear deal. so there goes the us ability to make any long term diplomatic deals for god knows how long. i just hope the rest of the world realizes that not every american is as bug fucking nuts as trump
Click to expand...
Just when the Iranian population was starting to lower their anti USA/Israel sentiment, Trump decides to starve them into compliance. It is pretty obvious that the sanctions fall mainly on the general populace and will be seen as an attempt at a forced regime change. Breeding potential terrorists by the thousands...
In other words, Trump is doing exactly what the Iranian leadership politically want him to do.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to argue from "authority" but John Waters (of P Floyd fame) was being interviewed yesterday (saying he is more up to speed with US politics these days than UK's) and flatly saying that Congress is a joke and the US is not a democracy .

His main point seemed to be that consumerism had won over and that people's lives were less in touch with one anothers (eg "Facebook")
A pretty dismal view (he said "let's wait and see...)
 
geordief said:
I don't want to argue from "authority" but John Waters (of P Floyd fame) was being interviewed yesterday (saying he is more up to speed with US politics these days than UK's) and flatly saying that Congress is a joke and the US is not a democracy .

His main point seemed to be that consumerism had won over and that people's lives were less in touch with one anothers (eg "Facebook")
A pretty dismal view (he said "let's wait and see...)
Click to expand...
I meant Roger Waters...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top