The Trump Presidency

[joepistole]

Trump tweets:
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"
He believes this yet isn't the reason more about how he attempted to put pressure on Comey to drop the Flynn investigation?

One must assume the Trump is either completely psychotic or his tweets are directed at manipulating his base. While Trump is mentally ill, I don't think he yet suffers a complete reality break. Trump's trying to manipulate his base, i.e. his dittoheads. Trump's brand of politics and his narcissism requires that he be the perpetual victim. How else can he explain his many failures?

 

[joepistole]

As mentioned, from the Strauss-Kahn and Assange cases.

Then, learn to read. I have answered a question why the deep state does not use implanting cp against its enemies. My answer is not at all in contradiction to your hypothesis that the deep state has anyway enough to impeach Trump.

Read this, there is no "deep state" conspiracy, because there is no deep state cabal. And there is enough evidence to impeach Trump, if we had anything but a Republican controlled Congress. What exists in the US but not in your beloved Russia is a centuries old democratic culture, and that's the problem which vexes The Donald and his Russian conspirators.

 

[iceaura]

For me, Trump is a laughable figure who has somehow managed to confound the plans of the main faction of the deep state,

Which faction is that? The NSA/CIA faction?
I pointed you toward a lefty analysis (recent Harper's) of Trump's battles with the intelligence agencies, which are a familiar issue and interest in my corner. We don't mistake them for "the deep state" - even though a lot of us want Trump to win at least a partial victory, and avoid having the Presidency become more vulnerable to these unelected and unaccountable powers.

If a state is not really unified, with parties fighting each other, they are already two states?

Nope.

Ok, in a formal state, there is usual some law which clarifies who has power. But even in formal states there are different parts, which may, at the same time, ruled by different factions of the legal establishment.

Bingo. That's why you don't have two of them.

A deep state is, by definition, less formal, and so there is also no clear hierarchy,

As far as I can tell, you have no coherent idea of what you are talking about when using the term "deep state". You have Trump supposedly fighting against it, for example, when he has brought the fossil fuel interests and the military/industrial complex on board in his cabinet and throughout his administration.

Of course, I do not support the extreme view that those with legal power are only puppets without any real power. They have also some real power. How much, is hard to evaluate from the outside.

Especially if you refuse to include real world information - such as the Iraq War launching and other Republican Party specific actions and policies - in your assessments.
Clearly the differences between the ideologies and competencies of the particular officials elected makes a very large and dramatic difference in the behaviors of the US government - even though the "deep state" remains the same.

The wars against various secular Arabic regimes, and the use of jihadi terrorism for this purpose, are supported by above Parties. Yes, there are differences, but in degree and methods, not in the main aims.

I regard as very significant the differences of degree and methods as dramatic as we have seen. You, apparently, see no significant difference between the Iraq War and the Obama policy in Syria; you see no significance in the establishment of black site torture prisons and suspension of habeus corpus and other aspects of the Security State; you see no difference in the reduction vs the expansion of the use of military force. Even more revealingly, you deny much of the scale of those differences, and even mistake their nature - you had the Dems emphasizing jihadist support and undermining regimes and such, while the Republicans emphasized open war instead; that was simply wrong: the Republicans have been doing more, not less, jihadist supporting and regime destabilizing.

Same for Obamacare. If Republicans would be really against it, it would have been already replaced by some completely different Trumpcare, or no government care at all. Above want big government in Medicine, even if Republicans claim otherwise in propaganda.

The Republicans are against it, and are working to get rid of it, more than they say in their propaganda - not less. The Republican propaganda hides a greater, not lesser, hostility toward Medicare and Social Security and the like. What's delaying the cancellation of these government programs are the consequences, which are obvious, and the need to avoid being blamed by their voters for these consequences. They have to be careful, because they are going to do a lot of harm to a lot of voters for bad reasons.

 

[Schmelzer]

Which faction is that? The NSA/CIA faction?

This is certainly one of the most powerful factions. And one of the most dangerous. Their power has clearly increased during the Obama time, they are now the main force in foreign policy, the faction which fights the real wars.

As far as I can tell, you have no coherent idea of what you are talking about when using the term "deep state". You have Trump supposedly fighting against it, for example, when he has brought the fossil fuel interests and the military/industrial complex on board in his cabinet and throughout his administration.

I try to avoid theories which are far too specific about the structure of the deep state. This is speculation to be left to conspiracy theorists (who may be right or wrong with their particular proposals). I admit that a "coherent idea" about this particular institution, which aims to hide behind the official state, would be too speculative given the information we have.

Especially if you refuse to include real world information - such as the Iraq War launching and other Republican Party specific actions and policies - in your assessments.

As if the Democrats would have opposed it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html tells me that there was a 29:22 in favor of the war among the Democrats. So, yes, there are some differences, the Republican voted all except one for the Iraq war, but these differences are not that important as you like to present them.

I regard as very significant the differences of degree and methods as dramatic as we have seen. You, apparently, see no significant difference between the Iraq War and the Obama policy in Syria;

They are, above, aggression, war. The difference is a degree of escalation. Obama's methods of supporting terrorists are more criminal, despicable from a moral point of view, but, on the other hand, there is less use of military power. Yes, there are differences, and I see them. But from a moral point of view they are as relevant as the differences between Hitler and Mussolini.

Even more revealingly, you deny much of the scale of those differences, and even mistake their nature - you had the Dems emphasizing jihadist support and undermining regimes and such, while the Republicans emphasized open war instead; that was simply wrong: the Republicans have been doing more, not less, jihadist supporting and regime destabilizing.

Indeed, I see terrorist support as a Democratic tradition. The father of Al Qaida is Brzezinski, not Kissinger. The three main actions of Obama were two jihadi terrorist wars and one Bandera fascist war. The main W wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, were above open US-military wars. No, I do not deny that W has supported terrorists too, and this is part of that I see only differences in degree of criminality. Color revolutions were also a democratic invention, first used in Clinton time, against Milosevich in Serbia. W has, then, continued to use this scheme of regime change. Also very remarkable was the Kosovo war, a combination of support for Albanian terrorists, with a "humanitarian" mission of bombing to support these terrorist forces on the ground, similar to Libya. Also Clinton's work.

The Republicans are against it, and are working to get rid of it, more than they say in their propaganda - not less.

Yep, and that's why Obamacare is fine yet, despite Republicans in power.

The Republican propaganda hides a greater, not lesser, hostility toward Medicare and Social Security and the like. What's delaying the cancellation of these government programs are the consequences, which are obvious, and the need to avoid being blamed by their voters for these consequences. They have to be careful, because they are going to do a lot of harm to a lot of voters for bad reasons.

Except that this makes no sense. If the Republicans are against this for ideological reasons, they would not believe that cancelling it has some negative consequences. If they would be right or wrong about this does not matter at all, this is how ideological prejudices work. A typical case of the left believing not only the own propaganda, but somehow thinking that the right believe the same left propaganda BS too.

The reason why they support Obamacare in reality, despite their propaganda, is that the Big Insurance Business wants it. And pays them all, Republicans as Democrats.

 

[iceaura]

Their power has clearly increased during the Obama time, they are now the main force in foreign policy, the faction which fights the real wars.

That's not an increase in their power, but a reduction in the employment of the military.

As if the Democrats would have opposed it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html tells me that there was a 29:22 in favor of the war among the Democrats

The Democrats did oppose it - even at high cost: several lost their seats in Congress because of that opposition.
You have been fooled by deceptive data, because you don't know the context.
Most of the Democrats in Congress voted against giving war powers to W, and most of the minority of Democrats who did vote to gave war powers to W opposed invading Iraq.
There is no way in hell Al Gore invades Iraq - for one thing, he had military experience in Vietnam. For another, he would have had much less support than W - from Republicans or Democrats.
Different President, completely different foreign policy outcome - deep state or no deep state.

The main W wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, were above open US-military wars. No, I do not deny that W has supported terrorists too, and this is part of that I see only differences in degree of criminality.

You have mistaken those differences - W did more terrorism than Obama, not less (notice even in kind - W's included an archipelago of torture prisons, etc). So did Reagan. And W launched full scale war on top of that, - a large moral and criminal difference.

Obama's methods of supporting terrorists are more criminal, despicable from a moral point of view,

They are methods employed by W, or Reagan, only somewhat reduced in scale under the Democratic Pres. (and increased again under Trump). How does reducing their scale make them more despicable?

Indeed, I see terrorist support as a Democratic tradition. The father of Al Qaida is Brzezinski, not Kissinger.

Brzezinski was as much involved with the Republican as the Democratic "traditions" (he supported Reagan's foreign policy over the Dems, endorsed W for President and served in his government, etc), and his focus was the Middle East and Eastern Europe - only some of America's terrorist support is there.

You can acquire a more accurate view of these Party "traditions" by looking at the full range of terrorist support - beginning support of what became Al Qaida directly was only a fraction of it.

Of course terrorist support in general is a Democratic Party tradition - it's just a smaller scale, less significant tradition than the Republican Party's terrorist support.

re health care etc:

Yep, and that's why Obamacare is fine yet, despite Republicans in power.

It isn't fine - it has been seriously damaged even from the beginning, and set up to fail even if it survives open repeal.

"The Republican propaganda hides a greater, not lesser, hostility toward Medicare and Social Security and the like. What's delaying the cancellation of these government programs are the consequences, which are obvious, and the need to avoid being blamed by their voters for those consequences. They have to be careful, because they are going to do a lot of harm to a lot of voters for bad reasons."

Except that this makes no sense.

It is the reality. It's information for you. If you have trouble making sense out of it, look to your assumptions.

If the Republicans are against this for ideological reasons, they would not believe that cancelling it has some negative consequences. If they would be right or wrong about this does not matter at all, this is how ideological prejudices work

Nonsense.
They favor cancelling all these government programs, because the programs require taxation of the rich. But they know very well what would happen to their election returns if they were to be blamed for the consequences (to the non-rich) of repealing them. So they are engaged in repealing and reducing and defunding and wrecking these programs, but only while avoiding blame for the consequences. That takes time and trouble. Part of the time and trouble lies in hiding from their voters (and in some cases themselves) what they are actually doing, at each step in the process of doing it.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have been fooled by deceptive data, because you don't know the context.

Lol, now no longer right wing propagandists but the data themselves lead me astray.

You have mistaken those differences - W did more terrorism than Obama, not less (notice even in kind - W's included an archipelago of torture prisons, etc). So did Reagan. And W launched full scale war on top of that, - a large moral and criminal difference.

The attempt to legalize torture by the US itself was, of course, a bad PR idea. I don't think if you end up caught by the CIA in Obama time you fare better.

They are methods employed by W, or Reagan, only somewhat reduced in scale under the Democratic Pres. (and increased again under Trump). How does reducing their scale make them more despicable?

Incorrect question, given that I don't believe in this reduction by Democrats. Two regime change wars based on jihadi terrorism are not a reduction.

Brzezinski was as much involved with the Republican as the Democratic "traditions" (he supported Reagan's foreign policy over the Dems, endorsed W for President and served in his government, etc), and his focus was the Middle East and Eastern Europe - only some of America's terrorist support is there.

I know, all evil the Democrats do they do anyway only following Republican traditions.

It isn't fine - it has been seriously damaged even from the beginning, and set up to fail even if it survives open repeal.

There is, indeed, agreement that Obamacare has been seriously damaged even from the beginning, in Obama time, so that it anyway needs serious modifications.

It is the reality. It's information for you. If you have trouble making sense out of it, look to your assumptions.

Speculations about motivations of your political enemies, based on their acceptance of your own political prejudices, are reality? Oh, I forgot, these are iceaura facts.

 

[iceaura]

Lol, now no longer right wing propagandists but the data themselves lead me astray.

Yes. You apparently didn't notice you were being fed info on the Senate only, and one vote only, without context. So you were played by your source, taking advantage of the childlike manner of refusing to become informed about anything you insist on exhibiting here.

You ended up claiming a majority of "the Democrats" supported the Iraq War, and basing your assumption of no significant Party differences in evil on that - which is of course obviously and verifiably wrong. They didn't. Your viewpoint, derived from such a ridiculous assumption, in this way becomes goofy.

The attempt to legalize torture by the US itself was, of course, a bad PR idea. I don't think if you end up caught by the CIA in Obama time you fare better.

It was not an "attempt", it was a program - the prisons were built, the torturing of hundreds or thousands performed, habeus corpus suspended, atrocity committed. And all that time the CIA kept doing whatever it had been, as well - this was all extra. Under the Democrats, the prisons were decommissioned and the torturing restored to its former hidden and sparse and shamefully secret condition whatever that may be.

Incorrect question, given that I don't believe in this reduction by Democrats.

The question is correct. Your beliefs are delusions, and dismissed automatically by the informed.

Two regime change wars based on jihadi terrorism are not a reduction

Yes, they were - even with your bs description. You are refusing to acknowledge the Republican regime change terrorism and similar policies, which were as bad and worse.

I know, all evil the Democrats do they do anyway only following Republican traditions.

So you are in error to ascribe extra Democratic Party emphasis on terrorism and the like. It never happened - the Republicans since Reagan have supported more terrorism and regime change than the Democrats. On top of that, they launched horrible open wars. That was extra.

Speculations about motivations of your political enemies, based on their acceptance of your own political prejudices, are reality?

No.
What I posted was information for you about political reality in the US. It is not speculation, but observation of a long familiar and perfectly obvious and openly acknowledged (in the right circumstances) situation. The personal and ideological hostility of the Republican Party Congressmen to - say - Medicare and Medicaid, is not verbal only, but expressed over many years in legislation and established policy (such as the refusal of Medicaid expansion under Obamacare). The agenda of repealing Social Security has been pursued since Reagan, with incremental but substantial successes accumulating over the years (there's a huge taxation of the rich issue underlying it). And similarly with similar issues.

You are once again posting opinions in matters you don't know jack shit about, and assuming you are seeing ideological bias when confronted with physical reality. You are going to be wrong about many things - foolishly and comically wrong - until you learn not to do that.

 

[Schmelzer]

Yes. You apparently didn't notice you were being fed info on the Senate only,

That was the first google hit, so pretenses to google. Ok, in the House of Representatives they were against. But in the average, we see a split, and not an opposition.

The question is correct.

No. Even if you would be right about the facts, given that you know that I believe otherwise, a question of type "How does reducing their scale make them more despicable?" is incorrect.

You are refusing to acknowledge the Republican regime change terrorism and similar policies, which were as bad and worse.

As usual, a lie. Further "you don't know anything" bs disposed.

 

[iceaura]

That was the first google hit, so pretenses to google. Ok, in the House of Representatives they were against. But in the average, we see a split, and not an opposition.

No. Blatantly and obviously no.

On the average we saw clear and substantial opposition from the Democrats in Congress to the Iraq War - and even more significant and substantial than the numerical averages of the one vote shows, not only because that one vote underestimates the opposition (there was a fiction that the vote was not really for war, but only for negotiating leverage, and some in opposition were deceived),

but also and dramatically because opposition was heavily penalized.

It took courage to vote against the Republican Administration's campaign for War at that time, which counts extra. It was the gut check vote of our time, and a clear majority of the Democrats in Congress voted well - a significant difference between the Parties.

Not only did most Democrats oppose the Iraq invasion, but they did so in the face of severe political threat. They faced losing support, power, media favor, and their jobs - the Republican propaganda campaign for war was in full swing, and winning. Many of them did, in fact, lose not only their power in Congress and their status in public, but their seats in Congress - their jobs.

No. Even if you would be right about the facts, given that you know that I believe otherwise, a question of type "How does reducing their scale make them more despicable?" is incorrect.

The question was perfectly correct, with respect to the real world - it even has possible answers you could give: you might for example claim that the CIA support for Sunni terrorism against Iran or Syria or the Iraqi Shia was morally better justified in a context of open war and open military occupation, and becomes more wrong or evil when there is no associated open war in progress, even at a reduced scale.

And it bears directly on your descriptions of the Trump campaign and presidency. If you refuse to acknowledge Trump's political nature and Republican agenda, refuse to recognize his behaviors and threats as they parade before your eyes, what are you even talking about on this thread?

As usual, a lie. Further "you don't know anything" bs disposed.

You keep saying you've "disposed" of matters you have never addressed, and describing as "lies" the obvious facts of your posting. Why do you bother? Do you think your displays of willful ignorance and gross errors of presumption vanish if you pay no attention to them?

 

[Schmelzer]

Not only did most Democrats oppose the Iraq invasion, but they did so in the face of severe political threat. They faced losing support, power, media favor, and their jobs - the Republican propaganda campaign for war was in full swing, and winning. Many of them did, in fact, lose not only their power in Congress and their status in public, but their seats in Congress - their jobs.

Don't cry. Such is your fate if you openly oppose the wishes of the deep state.

You keep saying you've "disposed" of matters you have never addressed, and describing as "lies" the obvious facts of your posting. Why do you bother? Do you think your displays of willful ignorance and gross errors of presumption vanish if you pay no attention to them?

I dispose cheap repetitions of claims without anything to answer which would not be a repetition too. I name lies about what I write lies, you could obviously answer such claims by giving quotes. You don't, if we would be in a Stalin-type trial you would not be obliged to, but here I don't have to care about anything, you can continue your lies, but it is sufficient to name them lies, and that you cannot support your lies giving proofs is sufficient for neutral readers. (And I don't have to care what the other Party soldiers think about this.)

 

[iceaura]

Don't cry. Such is your fate if you openly oppose the wishes of the deep state.

Nonsense. Had the Dems been elected Congressional majority or President - a shallow State condition, much dependent on idiosyncratic circumstance in the near past at the time - the entire matter never comes up. The deep State was clearly not running that show - the Republican Party, especially the W&Cheney administration, was.

Now if you correct your completely mistaken claim that the Democrats in general or on average supported the Iraq War, and take back all of the invalid reasoning you based on that willfully ignorant presumption, you may reset your approach so as to make fewer and less obvious errors in your assessment of Trump.

You have denigrated honest political effort, disparaged the actions of decent Congressmen, slandered your betters in political ethics and practical courage, and all in the service of your need to regard democracy as ineffective and representative government as an illusion. That screws up your assessments of Trump, because you aren't comparing him with competent, functioning governance.

Why? My guess: Because if it isn't, your reasoning about the "deep state" and so forth becomes a clearly unrealistic and juvenile pose, rather than an analysis. Your inability to see fascism becomes the standard immaturity of the normal adolescent male - an embarrassment, in an adult.

And in dropping this pose, you may bring Trump into better focus.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have denigrated honest political effort, disparaged the actions of decent Congressmen, ....

YMMD

 

[iceaura]

YMMD

all in the service of your need to regard democracy as ineffective and representative government as an illusion.

->

And in dropping this pose, you may bring Trump into better focus.

 

[Schmelzer]

I have no needs to regard whatever as whatever. In 1989 I was fighting for democracy myself. That I reject democracy as ineffective and representative government as an illusion is a conclusion of strong economic arguments based on public choice theory. I have no problem to admit that there is a solution for this problem, namely extreme decentralization of power. So in Swiss democracy works more or less, because there is a lot of power locally.

 

[Kittamaru]

I have no needs to regard whatever as whatever. In 1989 I was fighting for democracy myself. That I reject democracy as ineffective and representative government as an illusion is a conclusion of strong economic arguments based on public choice theory. I have no problem to admit that there is a solution for this problem, namely extreme decentralization of power. So in Swiss democracy works more or less, because there is a lot of power locally.

How would one accomplish this extreme decentralization in a nation as large as the US while still maintaining some semblance of standards across its sprawl?

 

[iceaura]

That I reject democracy as ineffective and representative government as an illusion is a conclusion of strong economic arguments based on public choice theory.

No, it isn't. The conclusions you have come to conflict with physical evidence and historical event in the US, and rather than question your assumptions you reject the physical evidence and historical events. That's not how strong arguments are made.

That's how you came to such notions as Trump the outsider fighting against the "deep state" for isolation and military cutbacks and a reduction of American imperialism - a Republican Party President, and fascist in ideological approach, and second generation wealthy real estate investor based in New York, you describe in that manner.

So in Swiss democracy works more or less, because there is a lot of power locally.

There is a lot of power locally in the US as well, in the separate States - more, in some ways, than in Switzerland.

 

[joepistole]

Trump's job approval numbers have always been abysmal, and they are getting worse. I was listening to right-wing talk radio yesterday, and it was very evident the Republican base is getting frustrated. They are frustrated that Trump hasn’t been able to deliver any of the goods he promised. They are frustrated with all the investigations: the slow death of a thousand slashes. They were crying for an end of the investigations. Callers wanted to impose an arbitrary 6 month deadline on investigations. They wanted to give investigators only 6 months to investigate Trump and no more which is kind of interesting given Republicans had no such qualms about investigating the Clintons for nearly 30 years. In the 90s they appointed 3 special prosecutors to investigate the Clintons. When the 2 special prosecutors appointed by Congress reported there was no there, there to Congress, Republicans appointed a third special and highly partisan special prosecutor.


Sadly the host explained the investigations weren’t ending. Trump’s impotence and the resulting frustration could cause an erosion of his base. Republicans are in a tight space right now: reality meets Republican rhetoric, and it isn’t pretty.

 

[Schmelzer]

How would one accomplish this extreme decentralization in a nation as large as the US while still maintaining some semblance of standards across its sprawl?

Who cares about it?

The conclusions you have come to conflict with physical evidence and historical event in the US, and rather than question your assumptions you reject the physical evidence and historical events. That's not how strong arguments are made.

Of course I deny iceaura facts, as well as joepistole facts. And that's because above have not much to do with reality. I don't remember to have given here an introduction into public choice theory, so how you evaluate the validity of the economic arguments made by this theory is not really clear. Probably this is an evil economic theory.

There is a lot of power locally in the US as well, in the separate States - more, in some ways, than in Switzerland.

Which is what makes the US that strong. They have been much superior in comparison with other states in this regard, and this is part of the explanation why they have been able to reach their status as a superpower.

Or better made in the past - the central government occupies more and more power via over-regulation.

 

[Quantum Quack]

They have been much superior in comparison with other states in this regard, and this is part of the explanation why they have been able to reach their status as a superpower.

so you are anti - success? ( must lead to corruption)
anti - wealth? ( must lead to corruption)

If I had a trillion or two in disposable income does that make me necessarily corrupt?

Are you really worried about unconscionable use of power?

Does power automatically make one unconscionable?

Cynicism?

 

[iceaura]

Of course I deny iceaura facts, as well as joepistole facts

That labeling is part of your denial process.
For example: the historical record, on line and in print and available for perusal any time, of US Democratic Party opposition to the Iraq War, is one of those "iceaura facts" you deny. So is the enormous boost given by the US media to the Trump presidential campaign - including a 27/1 advantage in air time over Sanders, for example, and a 2/1 advantage in favorable coverage over Clinton. These are simply physical facts, recorded historical events.

I don't remember to have given here an introduction into public choice theory, so how you evaluate the validity of the economic arguments made by this theory is not really clear.

I don't.
You post your conclusions, they conflict with physical reality and historical event, and you then have the choice of correcting your argument or your assumptions or both. You choose instead to declare the conflicts nonexistent, and the reality different than the one observed. That's not how strong arguments are made in a science forum - regardless of whatever "theory" you have employed.
I have cast more doubt on your visible and explicit assumptions, actually, than your invisible arguments from your ever-shifting "theory". They are garbage, and that seems a likely source of your problems.
For example: You assume you can recognize deception and propaganda from American rightwing authoritarian professional media operations, and for some reason you can't. Lack of necessary information, is my first and tentative explanation as to why - I can see that factor, in your posting, and it is definitely significant. It may even be sufficient, as it is for so many Americans.

That's how you came to such notions as Trump the outsider fighting against the "deep state" for isolation and military cutbacks and a reduction of American imperialism

Trump is a fascist demagogue, a species of con man, given the keys to the world's most powerful and globally extensive military and "intelligence" apparatus. He and his behavior are completely typical of his species. Your hopes for his Presidency were, and are, delusions - inculcated by propaganda you mistook, blindsided by professional media efforts that have been operating for decades now (although the large increase in funding after 2008 and then 2012 is notable, as Jane Mayer reminds us: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money)
Can you recover? This is actually relevant for me, as an American, contemplating coming events - how and in what manner can the blindsided recover their equilibrium, and get their feet back on the ground of physical fact, historical event, a common reality.