The Trump Presidency

[Write4U]

Schmelzer said:
A usual corporation in a usual state does not have such a power.

Trump corporation has assumed such power over state. Declaring a false "state of emergency" is taking power without constitutional process.

Trump was/is a corporate raider and has now transferred these techniques to acquire financial gain from the office of President.

Forcing the taxation of citizens for purposes not identified by congress (people's representatives) is against the law.

No taxation without representation.

 

[Schmelzer]

The potential loser in a nuclear treaty breakdown and nuclear arms buildup involving Russia and the US is not just Europe.
Remember when nuclear war was a concern of yours?

It is today too. I just tried to explain to you what has prevented former US presidents from going out of INF.

So?

So.

You are on record supporting the breakdown of the American and Eurasian democracies, and welcoming their replacement by fascist governance.

As usual, a lie. Democracy is simply not a value for me. But an authoritarian state is none too. I'm neutral in this relation. With the exception of the US, but only because the US is the most aggressive and dangerous country for world peace so that what harms the US is good for the world. But even if this would be true, it would not contradict the point that I do not argue for the destruction of the states to create an anarchistic society before the power structures of an anarchistic society have been created.

A capitalist corporation uncurbed by government easily acquires such power - almost by default. That is historical record, observation - it's where the "banana" in "banana republic" came from.

I have no problem with this, I think that a state was necessary without modern information technology. The situation changes if a global reputational system is established.

And when you rename them, they stop being capitalist corporations? Cool. I have no such magical powers, myself.

No. I rename them after they have changed and became states. No magical powers necessary, only accepting the facts on the ground.

In your recent post, it had expanded to include not only the entire government but all the major corporations involved.
Before that, you had separated out the "politicians", political appointees, etc. Before that, you had excluded capitalist corporations except possibly government contractors. At various times you have both excluded and included the intelligence agencies, the Justice Department, all the branches of the FBI, the Pentagon and military generally, the bureaucracies of the political Parties, the Federal Bank, and every Democratic Party affiliated head of a Federal Department including State.

Lies. Feel free to support them with quotes. Given your past behavior, we can be sure you will not, thus, you have yet another time disqualified yourself as a liar. (Just to clarify: If I name at various times various parts of the deep state, if never means that nothing else is part of the deep state, simply because I have no such complete list of all participants. So, to exclude some player X would require some explicit statement that "X is not part of the deep state".)

Of course not. People usually arrange their governments to prevent that, if they can. Fascist takeovers are disasters.

For the question of the power of corporations, a fascist takeover either changes nothing or even decreases the power of corporations. Corporatism already rules in modern democracies. What can change with a fascist takeover is the relation of power between the two parts - government part and oligarchs - in the corporatist structure. But in this case, it is more probable that the state part gains more power. Let's consider, for example, a state where you like to see a fascist takeover - Russia. There was the Yeltsin time, which was formally a democracy but in reality the rule of seven oligarchs, the state was completely corrupt and weak. Then came Putin, and today the remaining oligarchs have no political power, and the state is quite strong.
Moreover, there is even a structural element which makes weakening the corporate power in fascism plausible. The point is that a democratic politician has only political power for some time, up to the next election. Which makes him more corrupt, and open to lobbyist influence. If this weakens the state, so what, that's the problem of future governments. The authoritarian ruler has no such time limit, thus, can gain more from a strong state and weak corporations.

Trump corporation has assumed such power over state.

Even in this case, it is only Trump himself who has taken some power over the state.

 

[iceaura]

For the question of the power of corporations, a fascist takeover either changes nothing or even decreases the power of corporations.

! WTF?
I knew you couldn't see fascism coming. I didn't know how badly you were lost.

No. I rename them after they have changed and became states.

They remain capitalist corporations. You can check for yourself - historical records are easily found. In the US we had some particularly clear local examples - chattel slavery, company towns, immigrant labor abuses - but as information about the US is not available to those in the wingnut bubble you would probably be better informed by the southern Americas.

It is today too. I just tried to explain to you what has prevented former US presidents from going out of INF.

Bullshit. You were wrong about Trump and nuclear war, because you can't see fascism when it's parading in front of you.

So, to exclude some player X would require some explicit statement that "X is not part of the deep state".)

Nonsense. All it requires is that you declare "the deep state" to be opposing them in some action, to be responsible for some defeat of theirs, to be on some other side from them - which you do, whenever things don't happen the way you said they would.

I have no problem with this, I think that a state was necessary without modern information technology. The situation changes if a global reputational system is established.

Which means it hasn't changed.

There was the Yeltsin time, which was formally a democracy but in reality the rule of seven oligarchs, the state was completely corrupt and weak. Then came Putin, and today the remaining oligarchs have no political power, and the state is quite strong.

The Russian government is dominated by corporate capitalist interests, with a strongman in charge. The State itself appears to be completely corrupt and weak - Putin and his allies, corporate capitalists all, appear to be running a protection racket on a grand scale. What's your point?

Moreover, there is even a structural element which makes weakening the corporate power in fascism plausible. The point is that a democratic politician has only political power for some time, up to the next election. Which makes him more corrupt, and open to lobbyist influence. If this weakens the state, so what, that's the problem of future governments. The authoritarian ruler has no such time limit, thus, can gain more from a strong state and weak corporations.

In your little fable you omit a key feature of fascism: In a fascist takeover the capitalist corporate interest removes the politician and installs the "lobbyist" in power. The authoritarian ruler you mention is the corporate interest's representative - the capitalist corporate interest no longer lobbies the government, but is the government.

Of course things often don't go as planned - like Dr Frankenstein, the capitalists who get their representative installed often find themselves surprised by developments wiser folk would have seen coming - but such lessons of history apparently have to be relearned by experience in each new generation of the rich and powerful.

Once the W or Trump is elected, it takes on a life of its own.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I never liked Ann but: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...rgency_is_that_our_president_is_an_idiot.html

Maybe he should campaign 2020 purely on racism?

LOL! still listening to the radio show clip

 

[Schmelzer]

! WTF? I knew you couldn't see fascism coming. I didn't know how badly you were lost.

Sounds like you have completely lost the ability to argue.

They remain capitalist corporations. You can check for yourself - historical records are easily found. In the US we had some particularly clear local examples - chattel slavery, company towns, immigrant labor abuses - but as information about the US is not available to those in the wingnut bubble you would probably be better informed by the southern Americas.

They can, of course, remain corporations in a state and enslave people if the state supports such enslavement. What you provide are examples of such a situation, and I have made a reference to this possibility too. We were talking about something different - a situation where there is no longer a state. Then, if the corporations remain corporations, they cannot enslave people, simply because the people could be run away. To prevent this, the corporations would need possibilities to prevent this, and, once the people have a quite strong intention to run away if enslaved, they would have to do this with force, which is no longer provided by the state. If they succeed, they essentially have a monopoly of force over some territory.

Nonsense. All it requires is that you declare "the deep state" to be opposing them in some action, to be responsible for some defeat of theirs, to be on some other side from them - which you do, whenever things don't happen the way you said they would.

I have explained many times that recently I see a split in the deep state, with the globalist faction being the leading one, and some small nationalist faction. If an organization which is controlled by the nationalist faction is prevented from doing what it would be allowed to do in the constitutional order, then the plausible cause is that the globalist faction of the deep state prevents it. Given that the globalist faction is clearly the stronger one, I often omit to add "the globalist faction of" and simply name the deep state as the cause. This is simply an economy of writing, at the cost of not being completely precise.

Which means it hasn't changed.

It means it has not yet changed.

The Russian government is dominated by corporate capitalist interests, with a strongman in charge. The State itself appears to be completely corrupt and weak - Putin and his allies, corporate capitalists all, appear to be running a protection racket on a grand scale. What's your point?

In this particular case, you are simply wrong. This is the standard anti-Russian Western propaganda presentation, which is the only one available to you in your bubble.

In your little fable you omit a key feature of fascism: In a fascist takeover the capitalist corporate interest removes the politician and installs the "lobbyist" in power. The authoritarian ruler you mention is the corporate interest's representative - the capitalist corporate interest no longer lobbies the government, but is the government.

Neither Mussolini nor Hitler was such a "lobbyist in power", both were politicians.

Jeltsin was a lobbyist in power, but that was democracy according to the Western bubble. Putin was essentially chosen by Jeltsin in exchange of the promise to leave him and his family clan untouched, and the reputation of Putin that he holds his promises (he has done this in the case of Sobchak before). The oligarchs did not object because they considered him as a temporary figure, with the job to lose the Chechen war and to go away after this, not as a lobbyist in power.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

incoming

?
i doubt there will be enough democrats in the swing states coming out to vote to make a clear dem win.
it will likely be republican by a small margin.
it appears the majority of the noise is still surrounding self identity issues which are all attached to personal wealth and so the trend in capitalist society is to bow down to the richest as the idol.
if the dems are really motivated they may be able to get a even numbers... just.

meanwhile the majority of swing voters are busy running in circles clucking like chickens yelling "i am who i say i am so give me all the money"
US morality has been well defined as "pay per moral"/"pay-per-right" so whom ever is richest gets the best moral outcome. that hasn't changed much.

dems are likely to still have a majority win by total votes. just not in the gerrymandered election seats to win a fair democratic election.

A capitalist corporation uncurbed by government easily acquires such power - almost by default. That is historical record, observation - it's where the "banana" in "banana republic" came from.

i am keenly watching the news about pakistan & india at the moment.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Trumps key promise was for Mexico to pay for the wall.... No it wasn't a promise to build a wall, it was a promise that Mexico would pay to build a wall. Why have the opponents to funding the wall failed to ensure that the Mexican funding promise remains newsworthy?

How much is Trump's failure to secure Mexican funding going to cost the tax payer?

 

[iceaura]

They can, of course, remain corporations in a state and enslave people if the state supports such enslavement.

They are in control of whatever of the State remains (in their plans), so whatever they need in State support (which in the US examples I handed you, and the southern American examples I recommended for your education, was very little) is at their command - a matter of them supporting themselves, using the State as a tool.
That's the plan, anyway. And it often works - see "banana republic".

If they succeed, they essentially have a monopoly of force over some territory.

Bingo. Capitalist corporate interests with the power of physical coercion and oppression, uncurbed by government, unaccountable to law. Rightwing, militarized, authoritarian.

It means it has not yet changed.

And until it does, we have a reality to deal with. In that reality, we have fascism - which has taken over the Republican Party of the US, with predictable (and long predicted) consequences.
- - - -

If an organization which is controlled by the nationalist faction is prevented from doing what it would be allowed to do in the constitutional order, then the plausible cause is that the globalist faction of the deep state prevents it

Your basic problem selling that one is that you have demonstrated that you have no idea what the "constitutional order" in the US is. So when you hypothesize some "organization" controlled by some "nationalist faction", you have no idea what that "order" would allow them to do. So the whole thing becomes ridiculous - you lose track of who's in what faction, what the "globalists" want, where Hillary fits in and why she is particularly evil, the whole mess.

I have explained many times that recently I see a split in the deep state, with the globalist faction being the leading one, and some small nationalist faction.

Both of them also split - into Hillary supporters and Trump supporters, CIA and Pentagon, Wall Street and FBI, I think, if I have traced your tangled weave properly.
You have indeed come up with a variety of explanations for the inaccuracy of your expectations for Trump and the US Republican Party. One common feature of them all is that foreign influence - especially from Russia - plays no role whatsoever. Trump's immediate (but non-Syrian) expansion of the drone wars and restoration of CIA control over them, for example, you explained as him (alternately) suddenly gaining deep State support or suddenly falling under deep State influence. (From the CIA faction, apparently, not the Pentagon faction, of the deep State). The various (famously anti-Clinton) FBI investigations into his criminal foreign entanglements you described as a split in the deep State (that started before Trump's election, mind). Every time Trump does something typically and predictably characteristic of the fascist demagogue he quite obviously is, you discover the influence of another faction in your deep State. Now you are faced with Trump's and Putin's mutual abrogation of the treaties limiting nuclear weapons, and mutual program of expansion in their nuclear arsenals - including into war zones. There's your nationalism, isolationism, Trump style. Avoiding that kind of behavior was once your main reason for favoring Trump over Clinton, remember?
- - -

Neither Mussolini nor Hitler was such a "lobbyist in power", both were politicians.

So? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism
Doctor Frankenstein also lived to regret his failure to foresee consequences. We can safely assume that the authoritarian corporate capitalists who arranged their own takeover of the Republican Party did not afflict themselves with Trump on purpose - any more than the oligarchs afflicted themselves with Putin.

 

[iceaura]

Meanwhile, in Annals of Fascism Trumpstyle: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26355750/trump-administration-migrnt-families/

I guarantee you that nobody in the administration* ever checked on the suitability of this site on which it plans to warehouse unaccompanied minor children. I guarantee you that nobody there knows fck-all about benzene, or PFAS, or even the SuperFund. Nobody there even bothered to take the military's opinion into account.

 

[Schmelzer]

They are in control of whatever of the State remains (in their plans), so whatever they need in State support (which in the US examples I handed you, and the southern American examples I recommended for your education, was very little) is at their command - a matter of them supporting themselves, using the State as a tool.

This would be, indeed, the consequence of a simple destruction of the state, before the creation of anarchistic structures to replace it.

Your basic problem selling that one is that you have demonstrated that you have no idea what the "constitutional order" in the US is. So when you hypothesize some "organization" controlled by some "nationalist faction", you have no idea what that "order" would allow them to do.

I do not make hypotheses about the organizational structure of the deep state, I leave this to various conspiracy theorists (which I use here not in the derogatory meaning invented by the CIA, given that the deep state has all the elements of conspiracy against the constitutional order - I simply do not consider and evaluate such theories).

So the whole thing becomes ridiculous - you lose track of who's in what faction, what the "globalists" want, where Hillary fits in and why she is particularly evil, the whole mess.
Both of them also split - into Hillary supporters and Trump supporters, CIA and Pentagon, Wall Street and FBI, I think, if I have traced your tangled weave properly.

The point being? This complexity of the deep state, together with the point that they prefer to hide, is the reason why I do not evaluate all those theories about them in any detail. I extract only some very general conclusions.

You have indeed come up with a variety of explanations for the inaccuracy of your expectations for Trump and the US Republican Party.

I'm, instead, quite surprised that my initial expectations about Trump fit quite nicely with reality. The "explanations" you mention were present from the start, justifying that my initial expectations were also quite weak.

One common feature of them all is that foreign influence - especially from Russia - plays no role whatsoever.

Of course, I do not think that propaganda fantasies of the Democrats play some role in reality - except, of course, of what those fantasies create in the political life of the US, given that many people seem to believe them, and that Trump is forced to spend a lot of his time to fight these fantasies.

The various (famously anti-Clinton) FBI investigations into his criminal foreign entanglements you described as a split in the deep State (that started before Trump's election, mind).

I mind. As well as the split in the deep state. It is not Trump who created that split, the split was a necessary prerequisite to allowing him to win elections.

Every time Trump does something typically and predictably characteristic of the fascist demagogue he quite obviously is, you discover the influence of another faction in your deep State. Now you are faced with Trump's and Putin's mutual abrogation of the treaties limiting nuclear weapons, and mutual program of expansion in their nuclear arsenals - including into war zones. There's your nationalism, isolationism, Trump style. Avoiding that kind of behavior was once your main reason for favoring Trump over Clinton, remember?

What Clinton has proposed was a no-fly zone over Syria, which would have lead to war with Russia, given that Russia would have retaliated if the US would have shot Russian planes.

A new arms race started by the US I have not considered as a serious danger. Why? Given the actual high-level corruption in the military-industrial complex, even a lot more money will not give the US a decisive advantage. Russia has, based on 10% of the US budget, reached a lot, and is now even technologically leading in quite a number of key areas (air defense, hypersound missiles, tanks). Without assuming high corruption in the US, this would have been impossible with 10%. So, a lot of money spent to improve the US military means simply a loss of a lot of money to the US, without much need to respond from the Russian side, and it would give time - the US would not start a war with Russia immediately if the decision makers hope that in a few years they will gain military superiority, they will postpone the start of the war until they succeed gaining that superiority, and, once they will never gain it, this is the best which could happen.

It would be much more dangerous if those in power would think that they have to start the big war for global power now because else it would be too late.

 

[James R]

Schmelzer:

Of course, I do not think that propaganda fantasies of the Democrats play some role in reality - except, of course, of what those fantasies create in the political life of the US, given that many people seem to believe them, and that Trump is forced to spend a lot of his time to fight these fantasies.

What strategy do you have in place for when the Mueller investigation is done and it draws the inevitable conclusion? Do you have a plan in place for new rhetoric to deal with that? Just interested in how this works at your end.

 

[iceaura]

This would be, indeed, the consequence of a simple destruction of the state, before the creation of anarchistic structures to replace it.

It is nothing of the kind. It is the cooption of the State by corporate capitalism. No oxymoronic "anarchistic structures" are involved - or permitted.

I do not make hypotheses about the organizational structure of the deep state

You do. Incessantly, and incoherently. It has "splits", for example. Factions. You identify them by your presumptions of their relationships with what you presume Trump wanted to do.

I extract only some very general conclusions.

Which you lack the information to make - leading to the incoherent "splits" and factions with their shifting memberships.

I mind. As well as the split in the deep state. It is not Trump who created that split, the split was a necessary prerequisite to allowing him to win elections.

You have no evidence of any such split (favoring Trump, in particular). The fifty years of corporate capitalist support for Republican politicians and their tax cuts is not a "deep State" phenomenon favoring Trump personally. You can make a case for "deep media", maybe - but that would require that you accurately evaluate the propaganda campaigns you suckered for.

What Clinton has proposed was a no-fly zone over Syria, which would have lead to war with Russia, given that Russia would have retaliated if the US would have shot Russian planes.

Your fantasy life is not an adequate substitute for information regarding US foreign policy - and you describe Putin as some kind of idiot robot, incapable of making responsible decisions.

A new arms race started by the US I have not considered as a serious danger.

Of course not. You never see fascism coming.

Why? Given the actual high-level corruption in the military-industrial complex, even a lot more money will not give the US a decisive advantage.

Advantage is irrelevant.

So, a lot of money spent to improve the US military means simply a loss of a lot of money to the US, without much need to respond from the Russian side, and it would give time

Russia is setting out to build and distribute new nuclear weapons. Trump says the US is going to do the same. That's happening now.

It would be much more dangerous if those in power would think that they have to start the big war for global power now because else it would be too late.

If all we had to worry about was what the Trumps and Putins of this world were going to do on purpose, we'd never have to worry about big wars with nukes at all.

 

[iceaura]

Of course, I do not think that propaganda fantasies of the Democrats play some role in reality

Almost everyone involved in the investigation of Trump's various criminal behaviors and betrayals of office has been and is a Republican. The FBI has been staffed and led mostly by Republicans for its entire history. The New York division of the FBI currently most heavily involved in the various State-side investigations pressing on Trump and his criminal family was and is famous for its anti-Clinton bias (as was visible in their handling of the email bs, during the 2016 campaign).

 

[Write4U]

What strategy do you have in place for when the Mueller investigation is done and draws the inevitable conclusion? Do you have a plan in place for new rhetoric to deal with that? Just interested in how this works at your end

Mueller's integrity will be called into question. It is the Trump Gambit. Do unto others before they do unto you.
Business 101

 

[iceaura]

- -
What strategy do you have in place for when the Mueller investigation is done and it draws the inevitable conclusion? Do you have a plan in place for new rhetoric to deal with that?

Mueller's integrity will be called into question. It is the Trump Gambit. Do unto others before they do unto you.
Business 101

Already done. No new rhetoric necessary.
Mueller is a minion or member (varies) of the majority ("globalist") faction of the "deep State" split. Mueller is currently persecuting Trump via arbitrary enforcement of trivial and oppressive "laws", and creating anti-Putin propaganda in the service of the globalists.

He needed that split in the deep State to account for a guy he presents as an outsider, a plain-speaking businessman, a non-globalist with a nationalist ideology and isolationist agenda, to nevertheless get elected President, despite the non-existence of actual democracy in the US.

 

[Write4U]

What amazes me is the number of "good citizens" who delight in Trump's scandalous behavior. I always thought that the "basket of deplorables" was perhaps 10 %, but 30% ......? That's scary .......

Interestingly, this number seems to be on the increase along with the increase of the wealth gap between the rich and poor (once middle class).

 

[Schmelzer]

What strategy do you have in place for when the Mueller investigation is done and it draws the inevitable conclusion? Do you have a plan in place for new rhetoric to deal with that?

There is no need for such plans. If Mueller presents some completely new evidence which really proves something, I would have no problems with acknowledging this. I can comment now only on what has been presented up to now. And this is nothing, except a discrediting of the US legal system which makes even simple expressions of political positions about American elections by some group of foreigners a serious crime.

Almost everyone involved in the investigation of Trump's various criminal behaviors and betrayals of office has been and is a Republican. The FBI has been staffed and led mostly by Republicans for its entire history. The New York division of the FBI currently most heavily involved in the various State-side investigations pressing on Trump and his criminal family was and is famous for its anti-Clinton bias (as was visible in their handling of the email bs, during the 2016 campaign).

Fine, The conclusion is that it is not clear which deep state faction controls the FBI, if there is one which has control of it.

It has "splits", for example. Factions. You identify them by your presumptions of their relationships with what you presume Trump wanted to do.

No, I identify the existence of at least one split by evidence like the one you presented.

Which you lack the information to make - leading to the incoherent "splits" and factions with their shifting memberships.

Various researchers see the split differently and describe the factions differently. Once I do not aim to decide which theory about this is the best, given that such details are less interesting for me, it is indeed quite possible that one can see some contradictions. Say, some see a split between the Zionist faction and the Anglo-Saxon faction. How this could correlate with the split between globalists and nationalists seen by other researchers is not clear at all.

The point which is sufficiently clear is that there actually exist some splits (at least one), that these splits are not irrelevant as they have been before, and that the infight actually seriously weakens the global power of the US.

You have no evidence of any such split (favoring Trump, in particular).

In fact, regarding the deep state, I simply give you information about what seems plausible to me. It is not my point to prove something to you. So, feel free not to believe that such an animal exists.

The obviously visible facts are that before the foreign policy of the US was quite consistent, and bipartisan, and now it is full of contradictions, even before Trump (say, Kelly has repeatedly made contracts with Russia about Syria which has been openly sabotaged by the Pentagon). And what we see today is even more serious - it is not only Trump sabotaging globalists power, it is also the anti/Trumpers sabotaging the relation to Saudi Arabia just because Trump does not like it, not caring about the much greater harm of such a disruption for American global power.

Your fantasy life is not an adequate substitute for information regarding US foreign policy - and you describe Putin as some kind of idiot robot, incapable of making responsible decisions.

My "fantasy" was simply her declared program. Of course, I know that in American democracy election programs are more than 50% lies, so you have a point if you name it a fantasy that the candidates would do what they have proposed. But if other information is not available, and the direction of the lies are unknown, following the available information remains reasonable. Moreover, in the case of Clinton enough war crimes were already known.

Answering an attack differs from behaving like an idiot robot. It is very often the most responsible decision if you like it or not.

Advantage is irrelevant.

Perceived advantage is the most important thing for the US to start a war. Russia has simply reacted to the US rocket defense systems, with hypersound rockets which cannot be caught by these systems, that's all.

 

[Write4U]

I can comment now only on what has been presented up to now. And this is nothing, except a discrediting of the US legal system which makes even simple expressions of political positions about American elections by some group of foreigners a serious crime.

NOTHING!!!!??? Are you blind?
More than 30 people in the upper echelon of the Trump closest circle have been charged with crimes.

As to dealing with foreign powers to gain an advantage in the election process, we are talking about "sedition" by US citizens, not the behavior of our enemies. We know how they behave.
You want to stoop down to that level of criminality also?

Is Sedition a crime in the United States?
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. ... Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

Soon we will know about Trump's involvement with this "basket of deplorables". We have yet to see his Tax returns. Would you care if Trump turns out to have cheated on his taxes?

If you cheat they come and get you. You believe Trump should be exempt?

You want a gang running the nation? Why? Are you a gangster?

 

[iceaura]

I can comment now only on what has been presented up to now. And this is nothing, except a discrediting of the US legal system which makes even simple expressions of political positions about American elections by some group of foreigners a serious crime.

That is not what has been presented up until now - not even close.

Fine, The conclusion is that it is not clear which deep state faction controls the FBI, if there is one which has control of it.

Yep. The conclusion was - and is - that you have no idea what, who, or even whether, belongs to the US deep State or any "split" therein.

Various researchers see the split differently and describe the factions differently.

Your seeing and describing is uninformed and incoherent. Your choice of "researchers" has been remarkably foolish, as far as you have posted here - you have suckered for the crudest, silliest propaganda feeds in the US arena.

No, I identify the existence of at least one split

No, you don't. You identify nothing. You presume, you hypothesize, you declare - you do not identify.

Say, some see a split between the Zionist faction and the Anglo-Saxon faction. How this could correlate with the split between globalists and nationalists seen by other researchers is not clear at all.

Comedy. There's an "Anglo-Saxon" faction? Why not find something more useful to look into, like whether there's a waltz faction among the angels that dance on pinheads.

The obviously visible facts are that before the foreign policy of the US was quite consistent, and bipartisan, and now it is full of contradictions,

That is simply false. There have always been serious disagreements about US foreign policy within the government, some of them partisan. W's Folly, for example.
Again, as always: you need information. You don't know anything about US politics.

My "fantasy" was simply her declared program.

Plus your imaginary consequences, as mediated by a robotic and irresponsible Putin.

But if other information is not available, and the direction of the lies are unknown, following the available information remains reasonable.

Other information was available, and some of it was presented to you - especially about Trump, where you followed the goofiest crap you could find (a "rational businessman"? a "nationalist"? giggles)

Perceived advantage is the most important thing for the US to start a war.

But actual advantage is not. Neither is it the most important thing for Russia starting a war, or China, or Israel, or Mexico. Look at how often wars have been started by their losers.

Russia has simply reacted to the US rocket defense systems,

Rocket "defense" systems your "isolationist" Trump supports, throws money at, and wants to expand into space. That's how it works, yep.

And then somebody makes a mistake. Because that's how the bad wars start - by mistake.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer,
You do realize that an arms race with the USA will only advantage the USA don't you?
The strategy of brinkmanship was well learned during the cold war with the USSR and we all know how that turned out don't we?
Trumps strategy appears to be to force Russia ( and the world generally) into an arms race with the intention to eventually bankrupt Russia and set the citizens of Russia against the Putin administration as living standards drop even further than they already are. Even the vodka may become hard to get...

It would almost be certain that the USA would be the big winner in any arms race due to the economic growth/clout of it's military industrial complex. ( from what I understand this is standard Republican party activity)

Military budgets 2018
USA $610 billion
China $228 Billion
Russia $66.3 Billion
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

The Res. & Dev. percentage in the USA Budget would be the equivalent if not more so, to just about the entire Russian military budget...

So how do you figure Russian success in all this?