[double face palm, followed by a heavy sigh]
Can you blame them?
Probably checking her microwave for a listening device..
Waiting for his staff to stop twitching in stress and terror and fall asleep so he can get back to twitter.
No, I was talking about players in the deep state in general. A lot of private US firms are supporters of globalism. Others not.
The Bush wars have been at least official wars. As Iraq, as Afghanistan. The Obama wars are CIA wars, as Libya, as Syria, as Ukraine. In this sense, things were going worse, away from legality, under Obama. If things become worse now we will see. Up to now, they are not yet worse.
First, it is not Trump who decides this. Trump may influence what happens with the US during this transition. Then, the poles are the really sovereign power centers. Here you have Russia, China, India. Russia and India are federations, not really nation states. Europe may become an independent power center, but today they are yet a collection of US vassals, not more. If the multipolar world appears or not depends on the question if these power centers behave. Once they behave in a sovereign way, no longer like US vassals, we have a multipolar world. And it also depends on how the many small states around them behave. If they submit to the US or if they start to handle their connections with Russia, China as more important than those with the far away US.
I have not made claims about how it is organized. And none about its efficiency. Except that it can efficiently control the US power, without having to care about constitution, democracy and similar propaganda nonsense. I would suspect the actors of the deep state are also efficient in stealing money from US taxpayers and fulfilling their power lusts.
At the level I do it, the "deep state" is not really a conspiracy theory. Such a theory would have to be, imho, much more specific about its organization. The background is simply the observation that the propaganda world, with constitution, democracy, free press, and two very different parties has not much to do with reality, where the US government does a lot of illegal things, where about the really relevant political questions there is no disagreement between the parties, so that the opinion of the population counts nothing, and the press shows a coordination of lies which one would not expect in a free press. These are observations, and the existence of some deep state is a nice explanation for all this. Have you a better one?
The "deep state" is our system of checks and balances. That system doesn't exist in your beloved Mother Russia.
You were talking about Trump supporters - including them in the deep state that Trump is supposed to be fighting against.
Some kind of joke? You think Afghanistan and much of Iraq was not CIA war? That Syria is not a Bush war? That the W torture prison archipelago was legal? That launching open war with the entire US military on a whole-government coordinated propaganda campaign and coercion of Congress is somehow a sign of things being "better", while a semi-clandestine drone war carefully downplayed is a sign of things being worse?
Nobody "decides" this. Trump's influence and power are key factors.
Trump advocates building up the US military, including the nuclear weaponry, and cutting back on diplomacy. He is publicly willing to use nukes in a first strike. He advocates coercion and force in global dealings, for the benefit of "American" (in reality, multinational) corporate interests. That is his visible as well as predicted approach toward managing this "transition" you hope for.
Please. They have armies, central governments, treaties and currencies. Russia even has a deep state of the kind you attribute to the US.
That would be what anyone with sense would hope to prevent, and Trump makes more likely. It is probably not yet the case - certainly not with the conglomeration of competing interests you listed above.
The only way to make sense of that is to remember:
That's a good very good thing. I was and remain very concerned about Trump's efforts to politicize our judicial system. But with the appointment of a special prosecutor I'm not as concerned. Politicizing our judicial system would destroy the country. Rosenstein acted like a patriot today when he appointed a special prosecutor.
Good points, but if Trump fired him. It would make Trump even more unpopular. Mueller is a popular figure with both Democrats and Republicans. If Trump were to fire Mueller, and he may very well do so, that could be the incentive needed to revive the special prosecutor law.
In the context, I was talking about the deep state in general, not about which parts have which position.
I can remember that according to your opinion and according to your notion of globalism he is globalist. But I do not care about this.
In Iraq and Afghanistan there was at least some attempt to give it a legal justification. Syria and Libya were openly CIA wars. The Syria may have been a deep state war, in the sense that it makes a big difference who is the duck in the White House, and Bush may have had a saying as part of the deep state.
From the point of international law, yes. Open war is part of international law, and somehow regulated by international law, but support of terrorists is completely illegal, and completely irregular.
That means, he supports legal means - it is quite legal for the US to build weapons, and sell them to their vassals. And cuts illegal means, because the US "diplomacy" is non-existent as classical diplomacy, but an euphemism for color revolutions and regime change, above illegal.
Learn to read. They are, without doubt, states. There are not only nation states in the world, even nationalism is the key for democracy.
Competing interests exist in the deep state as well. Together with the corresponding deeps methods to solve them. Yesterday I have seen an interesting Russian comment, namely that, independent how all this ends, the whole thing is good for Russia. Because up to now Russian's were speaking about the deep state in their analyses. But what happened after Trump election is a visible presentation to the world what is the deep state, how it works and acts.
What in health care policy what really matters is different between the two parties? It was a known argument during the Rombama elections that there is no difference, that Obamacare is nothing but a copypaste from some republican project in some state. And the Trumpcare failure has revealed that the Republicans do not even have some alternative to Obamacare. Guantanamo Bay is yet open, after eight years Obama. So, what is politically relevant - the very existence of this prison beyond US-internal restrictions - has not changed. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution tells me that the Iraq resolution got a solid democratic support, 39%/58% in the two houses. So, the questions in themselves may be relevant, its the differences between the two parties are not.
And even in the worst thing Trump has done, the attack on the Syrian airbase, Clinton proposed much more. So, I have yet to see evidence that the "more likely" later appeared wrong (which, given that a "more likely" based on information I have known to be weak, would be not a big problem for me, I'm not Nostradamus). After that attack, I have modified my opinion, seeing that the media have heavily supported that completely illegal action. And I have given links about that, at the moment when this happened. So, even if I do not spend much time reading boring NATO propaganda, I'm in some contact with the reality of these media. You give only your usual "you don't know what you are talking about", which only shows some problems you have with how to argue in a civilized way, but have not supported anything by any facts. So, if you have any contact with reality is unclear.
Exactly as I described. You are getting your view of US reality from your assessments of the media, instead of the other way around.
You were claiming Trump was opposed by the deep state, and listing Trump supporters as belonging to the deep state.
You have your deep state excuse for having missed Trump's nature and likely actions, and so you don't have to correct your mistake. But don't try to claim we're talking about my notion of globalist - it's yours. The only modification is that I include multinational corporations - that category of mutual interests - as a "pole"; the pole, in fact, in the unipolar world the globalists seek.
And standard procedure of W&Co when they launched the Iraq War, which was illegal under international law as well as (probably) American law. Far worse than Obama.
Uh, no, it doesn't mean anything of that kind. It means he intends to rely on coercion - by all means including proxy - to impose favorable trade deals, rather than persuasion and mutual benefit. He's building up the military, and he favors using it.
Its passage. The actual enactment of it.
Exactly. A major Party difference. The Dems are a regular political Party, a functioning part of a traditional US government.
It got majority Democratic opposition. A major Party difference.
Obama is not a king. W's torture prison archipelago, extraordinary rendition program, etc, is either gone or so deeply hidden and shrunken as to be invisible - a major Party difference.
What happened after Trump's election was predicted by the people who were telling you how wrong you were about Trump, based on what Trump would do and has done - not deep state considerations, but State considerations. Why not listen to them now?
The other way around would be following media specialist iceaura or what? I get my view on reality, in particular US reality, from the internet. Many media have some internet presence, so they are sometimes used too. But they are certainly not the main source of information.
First, the details about the deep state are highly speculative. It seems sufficiently obvious that the majority of the mainstream is against Trump. But the fact that he was able to become president already shows that he has some deep state support. Else, all we would have heard about Trump after his first successes in the primaries would be some unfortunate car accident, or some criminal investigation about his taxes or so.
I do not need any excuse. I do not speculate about nature of particular persons, and see no need to correct mistakes existing only in your fantasy.
If we talk about Trump being a globalist, it is yours. Simply because I have not given clear enough definitions what means "globalist" sufficient to derive this. In my use, it is a vague notion used to name some faction of the deep state which is, by the nature of the deep state, only vaguely defined.
Of course, the stuff is still on the table. The deep state (Clinton faction) remains in control yet. What iceaura knows about Trump's favors is irrelevant, I do not speculate about particular wishes of particular persons.
Because they do not provide arguments and evidence. Those people I consider as reasonable do not make specific claims about what Trump will do.