The Trump Presidency

[Quantum Quack]

The deep state (Clinton faction) remains in control yet.

got any evidence or are you just venting your hatred for all things rational?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Democrats have no real power since they lost the House, Senate, Executive branch and the Supreme Court. They are a hollow shell. They have no good ideas, which is why they lose elections. All they have are scams, cons and gossip, which appeal to a limited number of people, which gets less each year. They cannot stand on their own ideas but need to create an illusion of rising above by digging a hole for someone else.

The main problem has to do with the difference between short term thinking, versus long term thinking, with the Democrats and the media short sighted. The emotional mind is more short term, by default, while the rational mind can be more longer term. The Democrats are not noted for rational thinking but emotional thinking with fear their preferred emotion.

As an example of the difference, picture if Trump says I will build a bridge over the river. If you are in construction, you know this is 2-3 year project, where nothing may appear to happen over the first year. The media and Democrats, who are short term thinkers, will go out to the river the next day and start complaining there is no bridge, as promised. They are clueless in practical matters well understood by rational people. They think the world is like a 1 hour TV show where a bridge can appear in a one hour TV program.

Behind the scenes Trump is making provision for the bridge, based on the 2-3 plan, while the left lives in TV land and can't see anything appearing to happen overnight, therefore they start to nag and complain and get emotional. The media is the same way. If they keep the subject on the 2-3 cycle of the bridge that would be boring to anyone not in the trade. They need to change it to short term by dwelling on minutia, which perturbs in a small time scale, more conducive to their brains.

It will be interesting to see how Trump fairs with all those Muslim nations he seriously offended not so long ago, on his trip to the middle east... How do you think he will go wellwisher?

 

[Schmelzer]

got any evidence or are you just venting your hatred for all things rational?

What looks for you like hatred in my estimate of the situation?

Don't expect much evidence if the talk is about the deep state. These are quite vague estimates. The relevant evidence was Trump bombing Syria, and all the deep state media supporting him for doing this, Clinton and McCain asking for more of this. But this, nonetheless, remains speculative, and it cannot be different, because it is the very point of having a deep state to hide it.

 

[spidergoat]

But the fact that he was able to become president already shows that he has some deep state support.

Your faith in the superpowers of the deep state are akin to a religion. We have a democracy of the people here, it's a real power, however flawed it can be at times. Also, Americans are genuinely repulsed when the president ingratiates himself to the leader of country in perpetual covert war against us and intellectual freedom in general.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Trump bombed Syria not because of some far fetched deep state conspiracy... he bombed Syria because, like most of the Western world, he was shocked and mortified by the reported use of Chemical weapons on children by a regime that is sponsored/supported by the Russia and Iran. and most importantly due to his severe lack of genuine empathy, he wanted to show off...

As I said in an earlier post, if it were me, and the intelligence was sound, I would have taken out all air ports and not just one, and I know nothing about a so called deep state. ( and many people would have done the same)

This is not to say that it was the right thing to do. It is saying however that Trump acted to gain approval from the electorate and garner a more significant global opinion of a Presidency that is terribly flawed. He wanted to show off

It has nothing to do with a deep state conspiracy that you are harping on about IMO.

There is ample evidence to support his Narcissistic impulsiveness and no evidence to support an organized and co-ordinated deep state.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Further, you will note that there has not been a major chem attack since. (so Trumps 59 missiles could have been considered as successful in deterring further use of chem weapons by Assad)

However Assad/Russia/Iran have apparently invested in a crematorium to dispose of evidence in one of their infamous prisons instead.
Satellite imagery seems pretty damning regardless of any commentary being included.

"Snow covered buildings, except for the building area in question."
"Eye witness testimony regarding the brutality and severity of this prison"

Mass executions and lots of bodies to get rid of... ( again numerous eye witness testimony)

 

[Tiassa]

Don't expect much evidence if the talk is about the deep state

How unsurprising↑.

 

[Schmelzer]

Your faith in the superpowers of the deep state are akin to a religion. We have a democracy of the people here, it's a real power, ...

LOL, but it makes no sense for me to argue about your religious beliefs.

Trump ... bombed Syria because, like most of the Western world, he was shocked and mortified by the reported use of Chemical weapons on children by a regime that is sponsored/supported by the Russia and Iran. and most importantly due to his severe lack of genuine empathy, he wanted to show off...

Trump may be stupid, but not that stupid that he believes such primitive propaganda lies.

Further, you will note that there has not been a major chem attack since. (so Trumps 59 missiles could have been considered as successful in deterring further use of chem weapons by Assad)

There was nothing to deter, and the next videos about the next fake attack are probably already in preparation. They will be used when it appears useful.

However Assad/Russia/Iran have apparently invested in a crematorium to dispose of evidence in one of their infamous prisons instead.
Satellite imagery seems pretty damning regardless of any commentary being included.

You mean that there was a part of a building with higher temperature so that the snow was melting earlier? Laughable. I see, yes:

"Snow covered buildings, except for the building area in question.

This is the type of news which I do not even mention. Independent from which side this comes. Simply already too unreliable as a type of information.

 

[joepistole]

This is what a famed executive, and Trump supporter said about Trump:

"I think without question we have a guy that's on the right agenda with crappy management practices," Welch said, giving the president a "D minus" on his management skills."

A "D minus"…? I'd give Trump an F. But that is coming from an avid Trump supporter. Isn't Trump the much vaunted super manager? The guy who was going to save us with his executive skills, and he gets a D-?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/17/jack-welch-impeachment-of-trump-would-blow-the-market-away.html

 

[joepistole]

Trump got caught telling his Russian masters the real reason why he fired Comey.

"WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing. - New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0

If that's not obstruction of justice, I don't know what is.

 

[iceaura]

I get my view on reality, in particular US reality, from the internet.

You get your view of US reality from the media operations of the US corporate authoritarian Right.

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.

Trump fits every feature of "globalist" you have ever mentioned or alluded to, except supporting Clinton politically.

[Discussion about who of the two evil mass murderers, W or Obama, was more evil disposed]

W's administration was an order of magnitude more evil than Obama's, and Trump's is setting up to be even worse. That is significant, in evaluating the Trump presidency - he's a Reagan Republican, and he's going to act like one.

First, the details about the deep state are highly speculative.

Yours are mutually contradictory, alternating silly imaginings with the occasional accuracy you don't seem to understand.

- 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.

Oh silly. Where did you get the idea that maximally cynical is realistic?
Trump's support is not hidden, secret, "deep", etc. He got a ton of media backing from all the major outlets, the Republican Party had no viable candidates, and Clinton had been pre-trashed for decades by the authoritarian corporate Right - look at how they suckered you, for example, with their propaganda videos. The major reason he didn't get universal Republican corporate backing is that those guys mostly thought he was going to lose.

And of course the sane among them feared his character - character flaws are a kind of incompetence, in that kind of job.

Of course, the stuff is still on the table. The deep state (Clinton faction) remains in control yet.

Confusing the "deep state - in control" with the "Clinton faction" requires that you ignore the Pentagon and most of the military/industrial complex, as part of the "deep state". Do you really think a deep state can control the US government without having the Pentagon and the military/industrial complex on board?

Because they do not provide arguments and evidence.

They were right, and you were wrong, to begin with. That's a bit of evidence, no?

In addition: They do provide arguments and evidence, which you seem incapable of recognizing. Often, you simply deny it. That seems to be because you are committed to a fantasy that does not admit certain facts (such as the enormous media advantage Trump enjoyed throughout the campaign).

 

[Tiassa]

The current copy (19.37 EDT) from Reuters↱:

President Donald Trump plans to nominate Callista Gingrich as ambassador to the Vatican, the White House said in a statement on Friday.

She is the wife of former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich and produces documentary films on public policy and history.

The announcement came as Trump embarked on Friday on his maiden foreign trip as president, which will include a visit to the Vatican.​

____________________

Notes:

Walsh, Eric. "Trump nominates Callista Gingrich as ambassador to Vatican". Reuters. 19 May 2017. Reuters.com. 19 May 2017. http://reut.rs/2qD3C01

 

[Schmelzer]

After disposing the usual "you are stupid" nonsense, there remains:

...

not much to answer.

 

[iceaura]

After disposing the usual "you are stupid" nonsense, there remains:

They do provide arguments and evidence,

Confusing the "deep state - in control" with the "Clinton faction" requires that you ignore the Pentagon and most of the military/industrial complex, as part of the "deep state".

certain facts (such as the enormous media advantage Trump enjoyed throughout the campaign).

Trump's large media advantage and Republican Party (which controls Congress) support, Clinton's enemies in the Pentagon and military/industrial complex (including the big petrochemical firms) that is normally included in any "deep state" speculations, and your repeated posting of wingnut propaganda from sources familiar to any American (regardless of where you think you got it from).

All of these - especially the military/industrial complex backing - directly bear on what Trump is doing. His Secretary of State is an Exxon CEO with strong Russian connections, in communication with Goldman Sachs executives buried throughout Trump's administration - there's your "deep state" unipolar globalist faction, that you claimed to oppose, in action. They aren't fighting against Trump - they're his appointees.

 

[Tiassa]

#deepfear | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Cogito ergo click.​

Confusing the "deep state - in control" with the "Clinton faction" requires that you ignore the Pentagon and most of the military/industrial complex, as part of the "deep state". Do you really think a deep state can control the US government without having the Pentagon and the military/industrial complex on board?

I need to borrow this, because I'm pretty sure I'm not telling you anything new. As such, a couple brief points:

(1) For instance, another reiteration of my prior point↗ about how strange it is to expect this particular deep-government to suddenly function efficiently—I mean, you know, if one happens to be into the whole "government doesn't work" potsherd farming bit.

(2) One cycle's patriot is another cycle's deep state. It's all a matter of what any crackpot wants on any given day. In 2014↱, a Missouri Republican working as County Recorder appealed to the deep state to overthrow Barack Obama. Well, okay, Debbie Dunnegan Waters didn't call it the deep state, but, rather appealed to rank and file military members to take action against a domestic enemy. This year, it turns out the professional hands every presidential administration needs around—the ones who can, you know, tell the newcomers how everything works, and where everything is—might well be doing just that. Honestly, I loathe notions like patriotism, but inasmuch as it exists or functions or whatever in these United States, there will come a point at which a rank and file bureaucrat must make a decision, and if that decision is between destroying evidence or something else, well, if an implicit aspect of your job is to keep the government running, leaking to a newspaper might well become duty unto God and country. They shouldn't ever be put in this position, but since that's the plan, they must be classified as a potential enemy—the deep state.​

Notes for the right wing:

• It is not archaeology if you're spreading the crackpottery around yourself in order to find next week.

• When it comes to the deep state and the question of whether the rank and file will abide constitution and nation, to the one, or presidential administration, to the other, conservatives ought attend delicate care about what they wish for.​

 

[Quantum Quack]

Published locally (national news paper)

Donald trump must be inpeached.
The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice.

The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving our constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called "high crimes and misdemeanors" that they cannot be trusted to continue in office...

read link below if interested
Author: Laurence Tribe is professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/donald-trump-must-be-impeached-heres-why-20170514-gw4sb5.html

 

[geordief]

Published locally (national news paper)

Donald trump must be inpeached.
The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice.

The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving our constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called "high crimes and misdemeanors" that they cannot be trusted to continue in office...

read link below if interested
Author: Laurence Tribe is professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/donald-trump-must-be-impeached-heres-why-20170514-gw4sb5.html

I think it is prima facie clear that any President who attempts to interfere in an important criminal investigation in the way Trump has been reported to should be impeached and removed from office.
Whether the evidence holds up is another matter but it should be investigated as a matter of extreme urgency and those who oppose that course should be also held to account .

There is a silver lining to this saga. Perhaps it will embolden the democratic forces in Russia to see that they can crawl out from under their own jackboot. Safe to say that the present support of the White House for the Putin regime must be very demoralizing for them.

 

[wellwisher]

I think it is prima facie clear that any President who attempts to interfere in an important criminal investigation in the way Trump has been reported to should be impeached and removed from office.
Whether the evidence holds up is another matter but it should be investigated as a matter of extreme urgency and those who oppose that course should be also held to account .

There is a silver lining to this saga. Perhaps it will embolden the democratic forces in Russia to see that they can crawl out from under their own jackboot. Safe to say that the present support of the White House for the Putin regime must be very demoralizing for them.

If you remember, the Democrats were the original ones cozy to the Russians. The Republicans were the war hawks who were more interested in maintaining a cool war. Under Obama and Hillary the Russians were sold a company that had 1/5 of the US supply of uranium. How can anything be more of a threat to the US than more nukes for the evil Russians that the Democrats now hate so much?

Remember the hot mike comment that Obama made, about I will have more flexibility after the election? That was in 2012. He promised to be cozier than he could be in public during the campaign season. This cozy changed when the Democrats loss the election and needed a narrative to leverage against the Trump presidency, who threaten to drain the swamp of this type of dealing. Trump passed an executive order that does not allow government employees to lobby for foreign nations. Obama was set up for the $500,000 speeches to Russia but Trump messed that up with his executive order. That pissed them off.

Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity. This is the real crime that is being distracted from. Trump did not do anything even close to this, so why is Trump's alleged connection more treasonous? It is a scam designed to distract.

The game works like this. Picture two siblings playing inside the house and one breaks a family heirloom. The son knows he is in deep trouble, when his mother finds out. So, to avoid being blamed, he runs out to meet his mother, to blame his brother, before the mother can assess the situation. This creates doubt that he will need to double down on. The new FBI director may need to investigate this. The real question should be what did the Russians hear for $500,000? Hillary never showed the transcripts from her high price talks to Wall Street, because it came from her other face and not her campaign propaganda. What did Bill reveal or promise to the Russians?

Picture if it was found out, by the Russians, that Bill lied to the Russians, while still taking their money. Would the Russians be mad at the Clintons and would they try to get even by tampering with the election? This needs to be investigated. What did Bill say that would cause the Russians to target the DNC? It was well known the Obamas and Clintons were not the best of buddies.

Trump and Russia makes no sense, since Trump was a long shot from the beginning of the election process. Why bet on the long shot when you already had a money relationship with the Clintons? This is a game of distraction, to lower suspicion on the Clintons. Hillary won the popular vote. My money is on a Clinton-Russian connection. The Russian are being made a scapegoat so this angle can't be investigated without guilt by association. The new FBI director made need to investigate this.

Here is an interesting montage, that compares words from Obama months before the election and Comey just before the election. They appear to use the same speech writer and acting coach. Trump was smart to get rid of Comey since he was too close to the Obama, with Obama's legacy at risk.

 

[Schmelzer]

It seems, I have, indeed, deleted some bits of information which were not the usual "you are stupid" nonsense:

They do provide arguments and evidence,

In itself, nothing but a claim. But this claim is at least supported with some argument:

... certain facts (such as the enormous media advantage Trump enjoyed throughout the campaign).

In this case I really do not believe in this "fact". It is in too obvious contradiction to what I have seen myself. namely that all what I have seen were media supporting Clinton and attacking Trump. I'm ready to concede that I simply may have not seen the many media supporting Trump. So, the real situation may be not that one-sided as I have seen it. But an "enormous media advantage" for Trump against Hillary is something I don't believe. Maybe I'm somehow confused because all I read from American media are those few exceptions which have supported Clinton? Hm, this does not seem to fit with iceaura's "observation":

You get your view of US reality from the media operations of the US corporate authoritarian Right.

LOL. But, indeed. this was at least some argument.

Confusing the "deep state - in control" with the "Clinton faction" requires that you ignore the Pentagon and most of the military/industrial complex, as part of the "deep state". Do you really think a deep state can control the US government without having the Pentagon and the military/industrial complex on board?

I do not at all ignore the Pentagon and most of the military/industrial complex. And I also do not ignore that there is some support of them for Trump. Which is what I have said a lot of times. So, this is not really an argument, but, as usual, a misrepresentation.

The question which of the factions is stronger in the Pentagon is far from clear to me. I do not have to follow "usual deep state speculations". For the private industry producing weapons it is clear that they want a large budget, and would also like it if other NATO members and other client states would raise their military budgets to buy weapons from the US. Which is what Trump promises, and it looks like in Saudi Arabia he is able to hold his promise. So, here a case can be made that this faction supports Trump. Similar for Big Oil. The case of the Pentagon is less obvious. They want a big budget, yes, but do they want real wars?

(1) For instance, another reiteration of my prior point↗ about how strange it is to expect this particular deep-government to suddenly function efficiently—I mean, you know, if one happens to be into the whole "government doesn't work" potsherd farming bit.​

I have answered this point in #1306, but I have no problem with some reiteration.

Namely, there is public choice theory, which is part of the mainstream economy. It is considering the economic laws acting in democratic states. And it tells us a lot about who wins in democratic states, namely big private interests, and not at all the general public. The winners may be big private firms, but also big government institutions, like secret services and so on. The economic point which distinguishs winners from losers is how important the public good problem is. If there exists a centralized organization which is able to promote some public good shared by all the members of the organization, then the impact of the public good problem is quite small. For things which are really in the interest of the people, the public good problem is quite big.

So, it is not the state as such, which is efficient or not. There is no such animal as an abstract "interest of the state", there are only interests of various actors. Some actors can reach their aims efficiently via the state, others not. The people in general are not among those who can reach their aims efficiently via the state.

 

[geordief]

If you remember,....etc

You didn't address my post and
so I will reciprocate.