The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

That’s nonsense, pure unmitigated bullshit. Both Democrats and Republicans were anti-Soviet during the Cold War. It was a Democratic president who threatened the Soviet Union with nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yeah, it’s those damn facts again comrade Wellwisher.

Hillary and Obama didn’t sell Russia an American uranium company. Hillary, in her role as Secretary of State was one of 9 government departments, including the Defense Department, which approved the deal. That Uranium company didn’t pick up all of its uranium and move to Russia. All the uranium is still in the ground. It’s still in the US and still controlled by the US government. Oops.

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.

The hot mike comment was with respect to a nuclear arms deal. That’s another oops. The truth is both Hillary and Obama have been very tough on your beloved Putin. That’s why Putin intervened in our election and helped elect Trump. Putin wants the sanctions imposed by Obama and Hillary removed. It appears Trump has promised to remove those sanctions.

Unfortunately for you comrade Wellwisher, the truth still matters.

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.

And your evidence is where? Where are those tens of millions of dollars and when did the flow into the Clinton foundation? Yeah, it’s those damn facts again Comrade Wellwisher. The fact is Hillary Clinton was one of 9 department heads that signed off on the deal. Some people connected to the deal donated money to the Clinton Foundation but that was long before the deal and long before Hillary became Secretary of State. Oops. Where are the bribes Russia paid the Secretary of Defense or Obama? There were no bribes or evidence of bribes as you and your right wing cohorts assert. And on top of that, unlike Trump, the Clintons do not take money from their foundation – period. Their foundation is operated by a board of directors and overseen by an independent national accounting firm. Do I hear another oops?

As for speaking fees, Bill Clinton did give one speech to a firm with Russian connections. But there was nothing unusual about the event. Bill Clinton routinely gives speeches around the globe for his customary 500,000 dollar fee.

And here is the thing, even though Russia now owns the company, it cannot by law export US uranium. None of that uranium can leave the US. Oops. Unfortunately for you comrade the truth still matters.

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.


The game works like this, one right wing wacko tells another a bizarre fantasy, and they tell another and another and before you know it you have a humongous right wing conspiracy fantasy.
 
Last edited:
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
You haven't seen that, is the problem.

That's a delusion you suffer from your interpretation of US media, because your interpretations are completely screwed up by your vulnerability to US corporate marketing techniques - you sucker for US rightwing corporate authoritarian propaganda feeds, and so you never know what you are looking at in the US media.

How does one break the bubble you are in?

I tried reason: I pointed out that Trump had no voter constituency or voter level support except via major mass media, for example. None. His sole means of communication with voters was via mass media - he had almost no local political operations, phone banks, get out the vote efforts, etc, at all. Even his name recognition was via TV shows - he wasn't a famous actor or sports hero. And not just Fox but CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc, were carrying major parts and even entireties of his rallies and speeches in full, live, while competing with each other for interview time and the favor of his presence to boost ratings.

I tried analysis and reference to studies, with links like this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/media-study-trump-helped-clinton-hurt-224300
and this: http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/trump-tv-political-ad-spending-1201906382/
and this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/...mps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0
and this: https://www.thestreet.com/story/138...billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html

And I tried straight appeals to authority opinion - here is an example of the CEO of CNN talking about the extraordinary coverage his station gave Trump: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ident-airing-so-many-full-trump-rallies-was-a

And that was just the positive coverage given Trump. The equally remarkable negative coverage given Clinton also featured in the media analysis.

Nothing gets through.

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.
Yes, you did - whether "overlook" or "ignore" is the more accurate term I don't know, but your entire analysis of the "deep state" and its relations with Clinton and Trump omitted the Pentagon and big oil and the rest of the military/industrial complex. That is also where you went wrong by omission in describing Obama as doing greater evil than W - you simply left out the W evils via Pentagon and military/industrial complex alliances.

The only faction of the "deep state" you have spent any time on is the CIA and related agencies, and their alliances with Clinton in the State Department. That is my guess as to how you came to the strange notion that Trump, a Republican, was somehow at odds with the "deep state" - despite such indications as all the military contracting stocks rising sharply in price upon the news of his victory, and his cabinet etc packed with bankers and oil company execs and the like.
 
Last edited:
$110 billion arms deal to the Saudi is incredibly unwise given that Saudi 9/11 involvement and Wahhabi or Daesh (ISIL) Islamic ideology. IMO
 
a typical autocrat. that's what conservatives really are underneath it all.


incompetence or darker? btw, you also have pence waiting in the wings.

 
Last edited:
How does one break the bubble you are in?
That would be quite easy, a few links to media reports of sufficiently important mass media (except FOX where I agree anyway that they supported Trump) which clearly take the side of Trump against Clinton would be sufficient to modify my opinion.
I tried reason: I pointed out that Trump had no voter constituency or voter level support except via major mass media, for example. None. His sole means of communication with voters was via mass media - he had almost no local political operations, phone banks, get out the vote efforts, etc, at all. Even his name recognition was via TV shows - he wasn't a famous actor or sports hero. And not just Fox but CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc, were carrying major parts and even entireties of his rallies and speeches in full, live, while competing with each other for interview time and the favor of his presence to boost ratings.
No mass media support would have been a point 20 years ago. But the increasing distrust in the mass media, and the increasing possibility to inform oneself using the internet, has changed this.
You have provided these links earlier? I have not seen them. The general argument you have made. And my reply was about the media coverage of the Jews by the Stürmer. So, the following claim
Based on the eight outlets studied, the ad-equivalent value of Trump's media coverage was worth approximately $55 million. The next closest candidate, Jeb Bush, trailed by $19 million, with an ad-equivalent value of coverage totaling around $36 million.
I do not doubt at all, because I can confirm that the German NATO press center "Die Zeit" I have observed a similar picture. My usual comment was something like "Yet another article about Trump. Why? German's have no right to vote, what is the point of a pro-Clinton campaign in Germany?" And the whole pro-Clinton campaign was only in a minor part about something in favor of Clinton, and almost completely unfavorable things about Trump.
But the following I simply don't believe:
As far as the media’s claims that it has been covering Trump in “watchdog” mode, the study appears to discount that notion. The majority of Trump coverage was positive or neutral in all outlets studied, ranging from 63 percent by The New York Times to 74 percent by USA Today.
But, ok, let's make a small test run. NYT has a search with a date, so I will simply try the search word "Trump" at 11/01/2016. 47 hits, too much, but sorted by Relevance. So, let's have a look at the first few:
1. By Fudging Math, Trump Takes His Towers to Greater Heights
Fudging is not good, negative already in the title
2. How Donald Trump Avoided Paying Taxes Using Other People’s Money
Avoiding paying taxes is clearly negative already in the title.
3. In ’90s Crisis, Trump Used a Tax Tactic Now Banned
Means, he used an evil tax tactic. Clearly negative already in the title.
4. Scary Dogs! Rigged Machines! Votes From the Grave! This Election, Paranoia Reigns
It is not only about Trump voters being paranoid, but at best neutral.
5. Trump
A week ahead of Election Day, here is our essay on how Mr. Trump’s use of “we” in his speeches — “We’re going to build a wall” — helped him connect with voters until his attacks and boasts came back to haunt him.
Doing attacks and boasts is clearly negative, using "we" to connect to voters is a sort of manipulation, negative too.
6. Donald Trump's Lawyers' Warnings on Tax Maneuver
Trump doing evil tax maneuvers, clearly negative already in the title.
7. How You Can Fight Donald Trump Right Now
Any need to comment?
8. The ‘Normalization’ of Trump, and What Comes After
Here one could argue a little bit about, but I think the tendency is clear:
Stuart Stevens, Romney’s 2012 campaign manager, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in May, “is the idea that he might normalize a speech and an attitude that as a group in America we have decided is unacceptable.” Whether or not Trump loses on Tuesday, it’s likely that nearly half of American voters will have decided that what he represents isn’t so unacceptable after all. ... “there will be a tidal pull to normalize this election, to make it Coca-Cola versus Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola versus sewer water.”
The "sewer water" here is Trump.
9. How Economic Gobbledygook Divides Us
10. Behind 2016’s Turmoil, a Crisis of White Identity
Above already about something different. With the last two being already irrelevant, no need to try the other, so I stop here. 7 out of 8 negative about Trump, 1 neutral. So, no, I don't believe these 63%. Sorry. But this was a useful check, given that there was some probability that what I see from US media could have been distorted - I usually follow links from sources I consider as reliable, and this can clearly create a bias. This check depended only on my choice of the date being random during the election campaign, and relied only on what NYT itself classifies as most relevant.
The only faction of the "deep state" you have spent any time on is the CIA and related agencies, and their alliances with Clinton in the State Department. That is my guess as to how you came to the strange notion that Trump, a Republican, was somehow at odds with the "deep state" - despite such indications as all the military contracting stocks rising sharply in price upon the news of his victory, and his cabinet etc packed with bankers and oil company execs and the like.
I have to admit that I have some personal preferences. I do not worry about the purely propagandistic question who rules - the people/democracy vs. the deep state. This is for sheeple. The question is which factions of the deep state control which parts. The different factions of the deep state prefer different politics, so that it is quite natural that some factions are more problematic than others.

So, if Big Oil rules and his actual interest is to get rid of green restrictions in the US, I couldn't care less. They may, as well, also like wars and chaos in other oil-producing countries, this would be a point to worry about. Big military firms ruling are more problematic - but as long as they want big grants from the Pentagon and the NATO vassals, and are satisfied with a technological arms race so that 10 yo weapons have to be disposed even without a war, this is not that problematic. It leads to some cold war, to motivate defense spending, but does not need a hot war. If the FBI wins, the US becomes a police state, sorry but I don't care. The CIA has, instead, other interests, it wants to rule the whole world in illegal means, and regime change, support of terrorism and so on is what they like. This is something I care about a lot. You will have other preferences.
 
So, if Big Oil rules and his actual interest is to get rid of green restrictions in the US, I couldn't care less.
Because environmental problems are such obedient, national boundary restricted things.

No wonder you have to deny AGW - admitting its existence blows your entire political ideology to smithereens. It's even more threatening than the operations of racism in the US, or child labor equilibria in a capitalistic economy - those you can kind of slide around. AGW is a direct hit.
That would be quite easy, a few links to media reports of sufficiently important mass media (except FOX where I agree anyway that they supported Trump) which clearly take the side of Trump against Clinton would be sufficient to modify my opinion.
No, it wouldn't. It didn't, in fact, just now and right there in the previous post. CNN's carrying of multiple Trump rallies, live and unedited, for example, didn't move your needle at all. That was complete proof of my claim - but you're incapable of recognizing the fact.

You are incapable of recognizing Trump-favorable US media, media that has taken the side of Trump. You live in a bubble.
No mass media support would have been a point 20 years ago. But the increasing distrust in the mass media, and the increasing possibility to inform oneself using the internet, has changed this.
If you think Trump voters "informed themselves" using the internet, you're even more lost in your fantasy world than I thought.
But, ok, let's make a small test run
And you "test run" New York Times articles? You didn't intend that as a joke, did you. You weren't just pulling my chain, you were actually evaluating the media treatment of Trump like that.

Trump voters by and large do not read, for starters. Certainly not newspapers like the NYT.

Look: You can't do it. That's the central issue here - you cannot evaluate the media coverage of Trump in the US, because you don't know anything about the realities involved.
So, if Big Oil rules and his actual interest is to get rid of green restrictions in the US, I couldn't care less. They may, as well, also like wars and chaos in other oil-producing countries, this would be a point to worry about. Big military firms ruling are more problematic - but as long as they want big grants from the Pentagon and the NATO vassals, and are satisfied with a technological arms race so that 10 yo weapons have to be disposed even without a war, this is not that problematic. It leads to some cold war, to motivate defense spending, but does not need a hot war. If the FBI wins, the US becomes a police state, sorry but I don't care.
You actually believe all that crap, is the weird thing.

Living and learning about fascism - unless the US can figure out how to deal with the Donald, you're likely to learn about fascism the hard way. Trump's kind of an international guy - domestic stuff is not where the US President has the most clout, and it's boring to Trump, and there's more tax-free money overseas. If the US can't get a leash on him, he'll be visiting you - agenda in hand, bankers at his elbow, army in tow.
 
Last edited:
Living and learning about fascism - unless the US can figure out how to deal with the Donald, you're likely to learn about fascism the hard way. Trump's kind of an international guy - domestic stuff is not where the US President has the most clout, and it's boring to Trump, and there's more tax-free money overseas. If the US can't get a leash on him, he'll be visiting you - agenda in hand, bankers at his elbow, army in tow.

The left has this backwards. Those on the left are the fascists. Fascists do not like freedom of speech and will censor opposing views. Fascists will use violence to intimidate and shut down discussion. Fascists will use propaganda and misinformation intimidation to shift people toward their POV. If you support Trump the fascist left will try to intimidate you. The fascist left does not like free speech and will boycott and censor anyone who will teach them something new.

Trump is not shutting down the discussion or even forcing the weak left to obey. Trump is enforcing the law. Fascism ignores the laws that are on the books, which were the result of long winded legislative action by both sides of the isle. Immigration policies and laws were defined way before Trump entered the picture. He is enforcing the laws created by a Democratic process. This is not fascism. Obama was lawless with respect to the democratic process and would only enforce the things it uses to intimidate; gay marriage.

The problem with the left is they invent new definitions for old words to confuse meaning. They end up wth double standards where fascist behavior by democrats is called democracy, even though it shuts down free speech like fascism. But to a rational person if duck quack, it is a duck, and not an eagle, even if you call it an eagle.
 
Trump is enforcing the law

how about he defends the constitution first as he swore to do and worries about other legal stuff later?
especially the emoluments clause (Article 1 section 9 clause 8)
Why doesn't he proactively support the constitution of the USA?
Why do you wellwisher not support the USA constitution?
Why are you trying to tear down the USA constitution with your rambling nonsense?
perhaps he can not even spell "constitution" properly any how...
 

he lied didn't he ?
"To preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the USA."

yep he lied... to you, to me, to every one including his God.
 
Last edited:
Because environmental problems are such obedient, national boundary restricted things.
No wonder you have to deny AGW - admitting its existence blows your entire political ideology to smithereens. It's even more threatening than the operations of racism in the US, or child labor equilibria in a capitalistic economy - those you can kind of slide around. AGW is a direct hit.
Let's see. AGW is, indeed, an argument in favor of a world government. But only if 1.) the human-made part is really important, 2.) this human-caused part really has catastrophic results, 3.) a world government or unipolar world order could really solve this problem, 4.) while a multipolar world order would be unable to to this.

Does that mean that I have to deny AGW? No. First, my ideological preferences are not seriously endangered: I can live nicely with accepting three of these four points, and continue to prefer a multi-polar world. AGW is (1). I reject (2) and have objections regarding (3) (I think the world government would be totalitarian, thus, much more catastrophic) and (4) (if necessary, in a multipolar world some agreement can be found).

Then, I do not have a problem with wishful thinking. As a scientist, I accept even conclusions which I don't like.
CNN's carrying of Trump rallies, live and unedited, for example, didn't move your needle at all.
LOL. Do you really think journalists are unable to make anti-Trump propaganda commenting live such rallies, and deciding what to film? If you believe this, its you who is naive.
You are incapable of recognizing Trump-favorable US media, media that has taken the side of Trump. You live in a bubble.
As you see, I have tried NYT, which, according to your source, is 63% pro Trump. I have found it to be 85% anti-Trump. I have linked the evidence for this, simply one day, the 10 most relevant to "Trump" articles. You have accepted this without commenting.

But, I see, your source seems to have tricked me into "63% pro Trump", writing "Trump coverage was positive or neutral in all outlets studied, ranging from 63 percent by The New York Times". Hm, positive or neutral. That means, 37% negative, and unknown parts of the 63% positive vs. neutral. So, this is an easy game, with the same evidence, all one has to do is to evaluate as "negative" only what is so undeniable negative that nobody would even try to classify it as "neutral", and classify everything else as "neutral" would do the job, even if there would be 0% clearly positive about Trump. With such techniques, there is not even a contradiction between your sources "63% positive or neutral" and my "85% negative", simply slightly different opinions about what is counted as "neutral". :rolleyes:
 
Let's see. AGW is, indeed, an argument in favor of a world government. But only if 1.) the human-made part is really important, 2.) this human-caused part really has catastrophic results, 3.) a world government or unipolar world order could really solve this problem, 4.) while a multipolar world order would be unable to to this.

Does that mean that I have to deny AGW? No. First, my ideological preferences are not seriously endangered: I can live nicely with accepting three of these four points, and continue to prefer a multi-polar world. AGW is (1). I reject (2) and have objections regarding (3) (I think the world government would be totalitarian, thus, much more catastrophic) and (4) (if necessary, in a multipolar world some agreement can be found).
there is no time for your multi polar world order to form...
But you probably think that is only propaganda as well...
 
there is no time for your multi polar world order to form...
But you probably think that is only propaganda as well...

What order? I mean, it's one thing to acknowledge Iceaura's titanic efforts to address Schmelzer's pretenses, but I thought we all recognized at this point that the content-free Puti-poodle word salads only existed for the sake of tossing Puti-Toots' salad.

There isn't really any communicating with our neighbor Schmelzer; he's made that much clear. Iceaura's admirable performances are pretty much for the sake of the record.
 
there is no time for your multi polar world order to form...
If nuclear war is unavoidable in near future, then, indeed, there will be no time for a multi-polar world to form.

Some people argue it is already there, given that some states - Russia as well as China - already do not submit to US wishes.

Others argue that it will yet take some time, the multi-polar world order starts only if the dollar is no longer the main world currency. But this can also happen quite fast. Up to now, the US prints a lot of money but yet succeeds to export the inflation. Actually we see the inflation in those things the superrich buy, like stocks and real estate worldwide. If the bubble bursts, this may be the end of the dollar. Nobody is interested in such a burst, given that every state around the world has lots of dollars, but those who recognize the danger care about getting rid of too much dollars, and, in particular, the trade among other nations is increasingly done based on local currencies, so that they do not need that much dollars. This would be not a burst of the bubble, but a continuous process, which decreases the amount of dollars used by other states as reserves.
 
The left has this backwards.

Says the person who cannot tell left from right.

Those on the left are the fascists. Fascists do not like freedom of speech and will censor opposing views. Fascists will use violence to intimidate and shut down discussion. Fascists will use propaganda and misinformation intimidation to shift people toward their POV. If you support Trump the fascist left will try to intimidate you. The fascist left does not like free speech and will boycott and censor anyone who will teach them something new.

I suggest you look up the meaning of fascist comrade. The left is the antithesis of fascism. The left believes in globalism over nationalism. You and those like you are nationalists. Your leader, Trump, proudly proclaims himself to be a nationalist. He also has openly and consistently advocated for the use of torture as a legitimate interrogation tool. He is an authoritarian who admires dictators and murders, e.g. Putin, Jung-un, et al. Your party, your man Trump, publicly denounces the free press. Trump refers to the press as the “enemy of the people”. And of course, your party doesn’t like science.

Furthermore, your party is the only party which has advocated violence. Your man, The Donald, has openly fomented violence from the podium. He has offered to pay the legal bills of those who engage in violence on his behalf.

Comrade, the truth is your party is the party of fascism. You need to be honest Wellwisher. But of course honestly is also antithetical to your ideology.

Trump is not shutting down the discussion or even forcing the weak left to obey. Trump is enforcing the law. Fascism ignores the laws that are on the books, which were the result of long winded legislative action by both sides of the isle. Immigration policies and laws were defined way before Trump entered the picture. He is enforcing the laws created by a Democratic process. This is not fascism. Obama was lawless with respect to the democratic process and would only enforce the things it uses to intimidate; gay marriage.

Well suppressing a legal investigation isn’t enforcing the law. Oops. Trump and his associates have repeatedly ignored the law. Trump has illegally used his “charity” as a slush fund for starters. He has defrauded people. Several courts have found Trump’s executive orders to be illegal. Trump and his closest associates are presently under investigation by the FBI. Trump’s closest adviser has just recently refused to comply with a legal subpoena citing his 5th Amendment rights. He has taken the 5th, invoking his right to not incriminate himself. And that very same person just a few months ago publicly declared taking the 5th was a blatant admission of guilt.Oops. Yeah, it's that damn truth thingy again.

Just because you don’t like Obama, it doesn’t mean Obama was “lawless”. Now if you have evidence of Obama’s “lawlessness” now is the time to show it. But you cannot, because no such evidence exists, in no small part because Obama wasn’t lawless. Oops.

Again, I suggest you look up what fascism means.

The problem with the left is they invent new definitions for old words to confuse meaning. They end up wth double standards where fascist behavior by democrats is called democracy, even though it shuts down free speech like fascism. But to a rational person if duck quack, it is a duck, and not an eagle, even if you call it an eagle.

Said the pot to the kettle….the truth is the “left”, i.e. anyone who isn’t a rabid right winger, don’t invent new definitions for old words to confuse meaning or anything else. You are psychologically projecting again comrade as folks of your ilk are wont to do. You aren’t being honest.

The “left” embraces free speech. Whereas the “right” and your man The Donald who leads the right views the free media as the “enemy of the people” and has repeatedly said so as fascists and dictators before him did.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-president-trumps-phrase-an-enemy-of-the-people-2017-2

That’s the truth comrade and unfortunately for you and your right wing cohorts the truth still matters in this country.
 
Last edited:
A Note on American Innovation and Inspiration

I suggest you look up the meaning of fascist comrade.

I am, in truth, quite honestly uncertain why it seems important enough to mention at this moment, but:

(1) The left has its own ways, quite obviously, of getting around to tyranny.

(2) Point likely one has no meaning or value in a society that, lining up its excuses to have a go at a certifiable, documented Stalinist tyrant, invokes Nazi metaphors to justify its false pretense for war.

(3) [There is no point three]

(4) I have yet to figure the riddle of how to properly argue the distinctions within a framework by which it is all the same, but Sciforums is hardly unique in that weird sense by which we appear to have deliberately created a crisis in going out of our way to coddle and encourage bad behavior so that we would not be seen as suppressing free speech by calling out deliberate bad faith. But think about the difference, Joe, 'twixt the Republican Party in which you and I would have been standing across the proverbial aisle from each other, and the idea of what you would need to say and believe in order to reassert the GOP credentials, these days. This foreign-operated and administered site offers a rather quite striking testament to a particular American way. Originally conceived as a place for rational discourse, the last eleven years have witnessed a deliberate handicapping of the discussion intended to advance irrationality. To the one, sure, there have always been people to say stupidly racist things and pretend they're as ignorant as the dead, but, to the other, we must—as we have—specifically choose to accommodate what we know is wrong. Look at the conservative conspiracism; then look leftward and consider the insatiable demand about the conservative façade, for proof it will never accept, and owing to their need to enforce an alternate reality often described, in American lore, with the word "bizarro". Society has raised up this stinking, filthy, ignorant brute of a demon because we did not wish to be so impolite as to not: Now, what? Our expectation of discourse was always, literally, an impossible task.​
 
¿#GoldmanWhat? | #WhatTheyVotedFor


James Donovan, nominee as a deputy to the Secretary of the Treasury, has withdrawn his name from consideration. Vaguely citing family↱, and hoping to be able to serve in the future, Mr. Donovan apparently told the administration he could not take the job.

Which brings us, then, to the commentary:

Trump, after having used Goldman Sachs as a punching bag for much of the campaign, had chosen seven veterans of the Wall Street giant to work on his team. With Donavan stepping aside, and Anthony Scaramucci also walking away from an administration job offer, there are now five prominent Goldman Sachs executives remaining on Team Trump.

There's also the fact that the president still has far too many vacancies in key posts throughout his administration. The Treasury Department is ostensibly poised to play a key role in a massive tax-reform initiative, but the cabinet agency remains understaffed: there are 28 positions at Treasury that require Senate confirmation, and as of today, only one of those offices has a confirmed nominee in place. With Donavan out, the president hasn't nominated anyone for 19 of the 28 posts.

‡​

Circling back to a piece from early April, I've been keeping a running list of some of the more notable departures from the Trump administration, some of which were voluntary, some of which weren't:

- Michael Flynn, National Security Advisor
- K.T. McFarland, Deputy National Security Advisor
- Monica Crowley, advisor to the National Security Council
- Katie Walsh, Deputy White House Chief of Staff
- Boris Epshteyn, a Special Assistant to the President (he led the White House's television surrogate operation)
- Andy Puzder, nominee for Labor Secretary
- Vincent Viola, nominee for Army Secretary
- Philip Bilden, nominee for Navy Secretary
- Anthony Scaramucci, White House liaison to the business community
- Shermichael Singleton, Senior Adviser at HUD
- Craig Deare, the NSC's senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs
- Marcus Peacock, senior White House budget adviser at OMB
- Todd Ricketts, nominee for Deputy Commerce Secretary
- Mark Green, nominee for Army Secretary
- James Donavan, nominee for Deputy Treasury Secretary


(Benen↱)

And there really should be more to go here than saying, You know, he's got a point!

And, of course, there is the sarcastic par, about this being exactly #WhatTheyVotedFor, but perhaps we should consider that a bit more practically.

After all, they did just elect an outsider, and neither can I discount the usual commentary about doing so for the sake of dysfunctional promises because, in fact, the prospect and presence of dysfunction are very important considerations.

And we should note that in defense of this dysfunction, some would mutter conspiratorially about the deep state, which in turn comes down to a bunch of people who have given their careers to the bureaucratic necessities of keeping the nation itself alive in order to attend its people throwing down and saying bullshit, they did not put in all that good faith effort just to see it pissed away for puppetry.

Right now we see what happens when we elect unprofessional populists for the sake of jealousy and ennui. The people who tell us that government doesn't work are trying very hard to prove their thesis.

And this will go on, and people will make what decisions they do, but in the future when conservatives tell us government doesn't work, our answer should be to remind that's why we don't elect conservatives.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Goldman Sachs exec ends bid to join Trump administration". msnbc. 22 May 2017. msnbc.com. 22 May 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2rLe0zZ

Kelly, Kate and Alan Rappeport. "James Donovan Backs Out as Nominee for No. 2 Treasury Job". Dealbook. 19 May 2017. NYTimes.com. 22 May 2017. http://nyti.ms/2rtLczF
 
Does that mean that I have to deny AGW? No. First, my ideological preferences are not seriously endangered:
Yes, they are. That's how you argued earlier, for example, when evaluating the case for AGW and finding it wanting. You evaluated that case on ideological grounds - you rated the reliability of the science on its media presentations, which you discounted based on your assumptions of the relevant political connections and pressures.
AGW is, indeed, an argument in favor of a world government. But only if 1.) the human-made part is really important, 2.) this human-caused part really has catastrophic results, 3.) a world government or unipolar world order could really solve this problem, 4.) while a multipolar world order would be unable to to this.
Dismissing without further comment your confused rhetoric about uni and multi polarity, "world government", and the like, we note:
1) AGW is specifically the human-generated "component". That's what "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is. You are denying AGW.
2) The question is how likely we are to avoid catastrophic consequences, if we continue on our current path. The answer is not likely enough for sane people to risk.
3) There is no solution that involves denying this situation.
As you see, I have tried NYT, which, according to your source, is 63% pro Trump. I have found it to be 85% anti-Trump.
You are not capable of making such "findings", because you don't know the realities involved. (You have, for starters, overlooked some of the Trump-favorable reporting, much of the anti-Clinton material, and all of the framing issues in what you did consider).
LOL. Do you really think journalists are unable to make anti-Trump propaganda commenting live such rallies, and deciding what to film? If you believe this, its you who is naive.
We are not discussing your theoretical speculations. We are talking about what happened.
I'm pointing out that among other favorable treatments CNN dramatically, and the others disproportionately, carried Trump's rallies live and unedited - entire rallies, often, large segments of them even more often. They also replayed their live footage, including long segments of Trump's speeches, throughout the news cycle, extensively. And they did this for no other candidate at nearly the scale they did for Trump. They did that for Trump more than for all other candidates, Republican or Democrat or Other, combined. Combined.

And that is just part - a major part, but nowhere near the whole - of the mass media support Trump arranged and received. That's how he won - overwhelming media presentation of himself and his "message", which he very skillfully arranged. His entire campaign happened on TV, manipulated via internet etc. He hijacked the pre-corrupted American news media, and used it to take the White House.

So your "deep state" conglomeration has to include Breitbart, Twitter, all major TV executive offices and most of their hired punditry etc, and the whole of Fox News.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top