The Trump Presidency

[ElectricFetus]

The republicans are in a bind, most of their voters are highly anti-corruption and distrustful of the government, yet here they have to investigate one of their own, maybe even impeach him, at the same time pissing off all of these new alt-right voters who will screech about the establishment kicking out their savior.

It's actually time(again) we really consider Trump is suffering from the early stages of dementia. He is the oldest president to assume office. Under what circumstance would someone state they invented an 84 yr old phrase?

Compare to these tow men who are older then trump:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_human_rights_and_the_future_of_america.html

I think it is far more likely trump has been suffering from full on stupidity for a lifetime.

 

[joepistole]

Trump's lawyers have sent a letter to Congress stating they have reviewed 10 years of Trump's tax returns and found no evidence of Russian money. However, there are a few exceptions. And of course, Trump has not released any of those tax returns.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Trump's lawyers have sent a letter to Congress stating they have reviewed 10 years of Trump's tax returns and found no evidence of Russian money. However, there are a few exceptions. And of course, Trump has not released any of those tax returns.

"He has great taxes, fabulous taxes, no russian connections, none, none, fake news, I guarentee it."

 

[joepistole]

When Trump's tax returns become public, and I'm sure it's a matter of when and not if, it will be the end of Trump.

 

[spidergoat]

I use the term "globalist" to name those fighting for a unipolar world. To be distinguished from those ready to accept the shift toward a multipolar world. This has nothing to do with having investments all over the globe - in fact, a multipolar world may be even more attractive to those who have such investments, even if only because of the danger that the unipolar world will end with no tax havens.

I guess Trump isn't globalist in that he doesn't give a shit about dictators like Assad and Putin, but I don't buy that he's taking some principled stand against the deep state. He has no principles. I bet if you ask him, he would say that the USA is and should forever be the world's greatest superpower. He just fights against anyone who contradicts his lies and threatens his ego.

 

[Tiassa]

#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweets: "Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal."

Okay, then.

 

[Schmelzer]

...but I don't buy that he's taking some principled stand against the deep state. He has no principles. I bet if you ask him, he would say that the USA is and should forever be the world's greatest superpower. He just fights against anyone who contradicts his lies and threatens his ego.

As if I would think he has principles.

I think there is some faction of the US elites supporting him (else, he would have no chance to win any elections). And I read what various sources speculate about the interests of this faction behind him. This is, admittedly, also highly speculative.

 

[joepistole]

#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweets: "Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal."

Okay, then.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-tax-law-firm-deep-ties-russia/story?id=47376041

https://www.morganlewis.com/news/chambers-partners-names-morgan-lewis-as-russia-law-firm-of-the-year

 

[iceaura]

My point was simply that even using what he says would be more reasonable than to believe your hallucinations about what Trump thinks

I have posted nothing about what Trump "thinks". I've been more focused on - and more interested in - what he's more or less likely to do, given his nature and motivations and situation.
And you have been arguing based on what American rightwing authoritarian propagandists tell you Trump has said, according to what your presumptions tell you it indicates. You have posted such arguments repeatedly - in claiming that Trump is more likely than Clinton to be isolationist, for example.

I use the term "globalist" to name those fighting for a unipolar world. To be distinguished from those ready to accept the shift toward a multipolar world.

Where by "polar" you of course refer to nation States, rather than multinational corporate hegemonies. But that isn't as much the case with Clinton as with Trump (look at the treaties she has been involved with her entire career, that Trump wants to discard in favor of greater US coercion) and you call Clinton a globalist and Trump not.

Given that the "Russian cyberattack" is fake news, there is nothing to investigate about this. But I have no doubt that the globalist will try hard to invent whatever reasons to impeach him. At least if the victory of the deep state is indeed not so complete as it seemed after the Syrian attack.

As you defend your initial wrong footing and complete misconception of Trump, brought about by your gullibility for American agitprop and Republican campaign operations (and your blind spot for fascism), you will need to employ your "deep state did it" explanation more and more frequently. His budget, for example - he needs an even bigger US military, for some reason, at the expense of the domestic economy and the economic foundations of a peaceful multipolar prosperity. Did the deep state write that budget for him?

 

[iceaura]

I think there is some faction of the US elites supporting him (else, he would have no chance to win any elections)

Of course - he is himself a faction of the US elites, and supports himself. And he has received major support from the major media in the US, with the obvious motive of making large profits, and the obvious benefit of winning him the Presidency.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think there is some faction of the US elites supporting him (else, he would have no chance to win any elections)

I think this is where yo are making a fundamental misunderstanding... Trump won his election on the back of non-elites...such is one of the weaknesses of democracy.
Trump needed no elites or globalists to win his election.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Don't believe in coincidence...
So the FBI directer gets sacked and then this happens...apparently using a "back door" provided by the NSA and leaked online...

"The ransomware attack hit Britain's health service, forcing affected hospitals to close wards and emergency rooms with related attacks also reported in Spain, Portugal and Russia.
Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at Helsinki-based cybersecurity company F-Secure, called it "the biggest ransomware outbreak in history".

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-13/global-cyber-attack-hits-hospitals,-telecommunications/8523102

 

[Schmelzer]

And you have been arguing based on what American rightwing authoritarian propagandists tell you Trump has said, according to what your presumptions tell you it indicates.

Again, hallucinations.

Where by "polar" you of course refer to nation States, rather than multinational corporate hegemonies.

No. I use simply the established notions, they make more or less sense. That among those who support the unipolar world are also a lot of big corporations is clear. It is clearly not the classical picture of everything colonialized by a single state - in this case, after the switch to Trump the globalists in the "colonies" would simply disappear, in reality they continue to fight. So, the German media corporations tell the very interested German readers that Trump firing some Comedian they have never cared about is a Big Danger to Democracy or so.

His budget, for example - he needs an even bigger US military, for some reason, at the expense of the domestic economy and the economic foundations of a peaceful multipolar prosperity. Did the deep state write that budget for him?

No, this is his elite faction. The part of it which produces the weapons in the US to sell to the US government. Or to sell them to the NATO colonies - which, for some reason, do not want to spend these 2% of their BIP for US weapons.

I think this is where yo are making a fundamental misunderstanding... Trump won his election on the back of non-elites...such is one of the weaknesses of democracy.
Trump needed no elites or globalists to win his election.

This is a fantasy weakness. You need at least some elite support. Trump had the oil industry and other US-based industries on his side, as well as some part of the army and FBI. And the trust of the population in the mainstream media is not that completely destroyed that you can win against 100% of them. So, Murdoch has supported the Brexit, and Fox has supported Trump (as iceaura claims, I have not seen Fox). While Le Pen had 100% media against her so that she was unable to get more than 1/3. But big media are 100% elite.

 

[iceaura]

No. I use simply the established notions, they make more or less sense. That among those who support the unipolar world are also a lot of big corporations is clear. It is clearly not the classical picture of everything colonialized by a single state

In which case Trump is a globalist, more so than Clinton even - I wish you'd make up your mind.

No, this is his elite faction. The part of it which produces the weapons in the US to sell to the US government.

The military/industrial complex, we call it. It's not just weapons - fuel and machinery and all kinds of stuff is involved. Their stock prices went up when Trump won the election - the smart money all thought the prospects of war were much improved with Trump instead of Clinton.

So that faction is not part of the "deep state"? You're headed for a No True Scotsman problem with this "deep state" you think is in conflict with Trump.

Let me simplify it for you: It's the State - the functioning agencies and working branches of the Federal government - that is in conflict with Trump, as it is with the Republican Party in general. You don't need "deep" - just say "State".

And the trust of the population in the mainstream media is not that completely destroyed that you can win against 100% of them. So, Murdoch has supported the Brexit, and Fox has supported Trump (as iceaura claims, I have not seen Fox).

Trump received billions of dollars worth - literally, billions - of free publicity and other media support, especially from Fox and CNN and ABC but also from every major network in the US. All of the top rated radio news outlets likewise supported him. The only media not biased completely in his favor were a few of the elite newspapers - and even in them he gained as much as he lost. On top of that, he had name recognition and an identity built up from his media appearances and presence over his entire adult life.

 

[Schmelzer]

So that faction is not part of the "deep state"?

It is. That I have named it here a "faction of the elites" does not mean that there is also a faction of the deep state behind Trump. I see no "Not True Scotsman" problem given that I know myself that speculations about those factions of the US elites are speculations.

Let me simplify it for you: It's the State - the functioning agencies and working branches of the Federal government - that is in conflict with Trump, as it is with the Republican Party in general. You don't need "deep" - just say "State".

LOL.

Trump received billions of dollars worth - literally, billions - of free publicity and other media support, especially from Fox and CNN and ABC but also from every major network in the US. All of the top rated radio news outlets likewise supported him. The only media not biased completely in his favor were a few of the elite newspapers - and even in them he gained as much as he lost.

If you count the type of "free publicity" which the Stürmer has given to the Jews also as "media support", maybe. And, ok, at least in Germany the distrust of the mainstream media has already reached a level where such witch-hunt like "free publicity" can really count as a kind of support. This problem of the mainstream media will even increase - given that they don't even try to change something even given that the problem is obvious enough.

 

[iceaura]

It is. That I have named it here a "faction of the elites" does not mean that there is also a faction of the deep state behind Trump.

So the military/industrial complex was and is not in conflict with Trump. Note that fact. Trump has never been in conflict with that "faction" of the deep state.

I see no "Not True Scotsman" problem given that I know myself that speculations about those factions of the US elites are speculations.

Being willing to classify actual entities as elements of the "deep state" removes your No True Scotsman problem, sure. But then you have Trump the globalist, Trump the warmonger, etc, just as with Clinton - only worse, because he more strongly and reliably represents their interests.

If you count the type of "free publicity" which the Stürmer has given to the Jews also as "media support", maybe.

You obviously weren't paying attention. Trump was handed air time, of his own, to handle as he pleased. He was treated as a star.

And, ok, at least in Germany the distrust of the mainstream media has already reached a level where such witch-hunt like "free publicity" can really count as a kind of support.

CNN was broadcasting Trump's campaign speeches in full, on prime time TV. The talk shows were competing for Trump's attendance - to the point that some TV pundit venues allowed Trump to phone in interviews, not even Skype a picture. (Including MSNBC, the supposed "liberals"). They fell all over themselves for his favor - CNN's CEO explicitly stated that of course this was favoring a bad guy, but it was too good for ratings and earnings to pass up.

That scene you call a "witch hunt"? It played more like an advertisement.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Oh oh the paranoid terminator is about to strike again.....

 

[Schmelzer]

So the military/industrial complex was and is not in conflict with Trump.

I would disagree about the whole complex. US corporations building weapons are not in conflict with Trump. But this is only a part. FBI ruled by Comey was unclear, FBI in future may become pro-Trump. Pentagon quite unclear. Most of the secret services are anti-Trump afaiu. But these are all speculations.

But then you have Trump the globalist, Trump the warmonger, etc, just as with Clinton - only worse, because he more strongly and reliably represents their interests.

Here I simply disagree with you. In the Syrian case, what Clinton has told was a real war with Assad, not just a one-time action. Nobody knows what Putin and Trump have talked about, but the Russians do not look extremely unsatisfied. Given that it is quite probable that the possibility of yet another fake gas attack has been discussed, it is reasonable to guess that some modus how to handle such a predictable event in future has been found.

That scene you call a "witch hunt"? It played more like an advertisement.

What I have seen in the German NATO-press was extremely one-sided against Trump, and 100%. What I have seen by some accident from American mass media was openly anti-Trump. Of course, this may be accident, given that I do not use such American media regularly, but I see no evidence for this. The time I would have accepted an iceaura claim without evidence as information is long over.

 

[wellwisher]

The media has always been biased left. The reason is, the media earns its money helping to sell goods and services. They will do this for anyone with money, who is willing to pay for services. To be good at selling even swamp land, you can't be too truthful, but need to generate fantasy. Not all goods and services are optimized, so you need to sell in ways that may need to be part truth, cherry pick the data, or add emotional appeal. Does this sound similar.

The left is more suited to change. To give them credit they come up with more new ideas, many based on emotional appeal. While conservative is more about what already works, and what has stood the test of time. The right is not as optimized to sell new stuff or stuff that is not as logically optimized if new.

Trump was sold by the left, in the beginning of the Republican primary, because the left leaning media was hoping to undermine the right. He was the new soap suds that was willing to pay to be made a household name. This payment was done via ratings. Once the general election came, the same media turned on him, because it was leftist. Trump undermined their credibility, since the majority did not buy what they tried to sell; Hillary. The reaction to Trump now is an attempt to regain their credibility, buy showing they can sell even bad product.

The reason CNN gets way with a format, that is loosing market share, is they have a cronyism contract with cable. They appear on all cable services and get paid a fee, even if nobody watches them. Trump may allow cable to redo this contract, by allowing cable to sell packages where people can choose what stations they wish to rent. CNN is doubling down to fight the dying of their light.

 

[iceaura]

I would disagree about the whole complex. US corporations building weapons are not in conflict with Trump. But this is only a part. FBI ruled by Comey was unclear, FBI in future may become pro-Trump. Pentagon quite unclear. Most of the secret services are anti-Trump afaiu. But these are all speculations.

And these are all part of the State. Agencies of the State becoming "pro-Trump" instead of carrying out their charter responsibilities and so forth is indeed a feature of the fascist agenda - we are all, if sane, fighting that increasingly dangerous tendency of the American State. You should too.

Here I simply disagree with you. In the Syrian case, what Clinton has told was a real war with Assad, not just a one-time action. Nobody knows what Putin and Trump have talked about, but the Russians do not look extremely unsatisfied.

Nobody knows what Clinton would have done, would be more accurate. What Trump has set out to do so far is increase the US investment in its already huge military, and decrease and cripple its diplomatic capabilities.
It leaves the situations around Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and so forth, to be addressed by a US increasingly militarized, and decreasingly reliant on diplomatic efforts, as climate change rolls in. Even Mexico - closer to failing as a State than seems to be common knowledge.
What does your good common sense tell you is the future of that current trend?
btw: Are you at least aware of the role of the "unipolar" US in keeping SA and Africa nuclear free so far? You who claim to fear nuclear war above all else

What I have seen in the German NATO-press was extremely one-sided against Trump, and 100%.

So? Your convenient eyesight is familiar, and Germans don't vote in the US.

Of course, this may be accident, given that I do not use such American media regularly, but I see no evidence for this.

And the reflexive denial, again - this is how, if not quite explicitly why, the absurd ones cluster. The denier takes their own ignorance as evidence of absence in the world - and then carefully preserves it.

You must have noticed his ascension to the Presidency, after a long career as a media figure and host of a famous TV show, with absolutely no political base except voters he reached by national mass media. (He lost his home State, county, and ward).

You aren't claiming to not have seen that, I hope - familiar as the unique properties of your eyesight have become around here, I don't think you can stretch them that far.