The Trump Presidency

Let's remember, according to iceaura liberal media do not exist. Ok, nothing to argue about, please don't worry if I talk about non-existing things, and continue to talk about them, I think other people know what I have in mind.

Try to read the text you are answering. As I have explained, this "picking fights" can (even if we cannot be sure yet) have quite isolationist consequences. Actually, the consequences are isolationist: North and South Korea have started negotiations, without the US being involved.

The classical isolationism is about politics - not participating in wars except for defense - and not about not trading. Weapons can be sold, resources can be sold, investment is fine too for classical isolationism.

And there is also an element of economic isolationism - to have real production inside the US territory. This is relevant for weapons as well as for resource extraction.

Not really. The economic aspect of isolationism - bringing back real production into the US - is a quite simple idea. The idea that it makes no sense to defend the security of others for free is also quite simple. It is also quite natural for those, who believe the part of the propaganda which hides the aim of the foreign bases and sells them as defending the security of others (instead of controlling them with a big military stick).

No problem. Indeed, the Trump supporters simply hate political correctness, and will not use the language of "freedom of speech", which is more popular on the left. But so what? This does not change the fact that political correctness is a fight against freedom of speech.

Learn to count. (1) embassy in Jerusalem, (2) the Maidan in Iran, (3) the crisis in Korea, (4) Syria, (5) Kurds in Iraq, (6) Russian embassy.

That there are other possibilities for explanation is clear and obvious.

Hm, the second one who names "conspiracy" a hypothesis about what a single person is doing. There is no conspiracy in the hypothesis that a guy who looks very stupid but, surprisingly, nonetheless reaches his aims, is, in reality, less stupid than he looks like, and the real fools are those who think he is a fool.

Regarding loyalty, I see no base for considering innocence as an option worth to be discussed.
Regarding the media, they use them and would be stupid not to use them. An intelligence agency has to use all sources of information.

Possibly. But who cares? Ok, once Russiagate does not seem to give what was hoped for, the globalists now try mental health. Looks like a Hail Mary Pass, who knows, we will see. But this is not what interests me. It is independent of my hypothesis, because people with mental health issues may behave in very clever ways, and the key idea is that Trump is behaving in a much more clever way than the liberal media present him.

This would be the alternative explanation. Trump is simply a paranoid schizophrenic, and this creates chaos. Chaos in the US leadership has, almost automatically, consequences similar to what, say, Ron Paul would have aimed to reach on a completely rational base, namely a return of the US to isolationism. In some aspect possibly even better, because more irreversible, given that chaotic intervention leads to a situation where nobody even wants to have the US as an ally, and all seek protection from the US, while a rational isolationist policy would not destroy the ability of a successor to return to interventionism. That Trump has supported some aspects of isolationism which his chaotic behavior created by accident is also explained by paranoia. So, paranoia as the common cause as for his support for isolationist ideas, as for the chaos he creates, which as the result leads to what isolationists like.

(A sort of reinterpretation of Pepe Escobar's naming the US the "empire of chaos". Instead of intentionally creating chaos outside the US (by supporting everybody, from fascists to Islamists, who is able to create chaos) to create US world rule, it is now creating chaos inside the US leadership to return to isolationism.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that is not "the alternative".

This is where your naivety takes you over the cliff.
The US military and corporate powers are the major agencies of US engagement and meddling. Reducing civilian oversight of the military, reducing government curbs on corporate powers, does not isolate the US. Quite otherwise.
- - - -

That is not "isolationist". Unless by isolationist, you mean cutting back on diplomacy.

True. But you don't see it either - you never see fascism coming.

Nonsense. They are the primary backers of it, and its firmest enforcers. They want to jail people for "disrespecting the flag".

No. According to me, you don't know what they are. That's different. They exist - you are just ignorant about them.

All modern US military action is and will be "for defense". All US meddling is and will be in the service of "investment" - corporate power. "Classical isolationism" is completely irrelevant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no doubt that Trump suffers acute paranoia and makes decisions based on it.. IMO
As to Schizophrenia, there is no reason to believe he suffers it ...yet. ( I only used paranoid schizophrenia as an example)
One could say that All white supremacist, racists, bigots, isolationists, reclusives are chronically paranoid. The paranoia driving their belief systems and chronically low self esteem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As if there was some "civilian oversight" over the deep state beyond cheap propaganda. Then, what has happened this year has weakened US power.

Has the US diplomacy? We have to look into the history books to find a time when there was American diplomacy worth to be named diplomacy. Telling the vassals what to do is not diplomacy, simple blackmail is possibly named "diplomacy" in mafia films, and the organization of regime change operation is also not what is named diplomacy. So, indeed, I think that to throw away the actual US "diplomacy" is, indeed, a step toward isolationism.

Ok, one can say they have a different variant of political correctness. But it is much more harmless. In fact, if you don't want to insult the US you will leave US flags as they are, without "disrespecting" them. If political correctness would have restricted itself to fight against those who openly, intentionally use insulting words like "nigger", it would not be a big problem. The original approach of the gay movement - turning words used previously as invectives as positive self-descriptions - was certainly much more reasonable. But I have some acceptance of the position that open, intentional insults should be somehow punishable.

But even if I have some understanding for a fight against those who use a small number of open insults, political correctness has long ago gone completely insane.

About "liberal media":

Whatever, I don't care and don't have to care. I think the other readers understand very well what I name "liberal media", so I will continue to use this label if I want to exclude the few right-wing ones like "Fox" from the mainstream media. About the media which support your particular variant of the Party line I'm indeed ignorant:

About "defense" propaganda phrases I don't care. I think not even the sheeple believe them.

I also disagree about all the politics being only about "investment". The anti-Russian hysteria is about something different, something completely political: it is about ruling the world. But ruling the world is not what any particular corporation cares about - even the big internet monopolies don't care much about, say, the Chinese communists telling them something about their content in China, as long as they can make money. They would not object to US world rule, of course, and they would profit from this too, but this is not their problem. This is simply the left-wing tradition, everything evil is capitalism. The deep state is not on the list of their enemies because they like it too, the Soviet Union was a classic example of deep state rule.

Isolationism is irrelevant for the Clintonoids, given that they support globalism, and for the rest of the left too, given that it is part of American tradition, and such tradition of White Males is evil too. How relevant it is outside the left is less clear. It is relevant enough that I have heard about it, but this does not tell much, given that what I see is mostly libertarian, and libertarianism is quite irrelevant.

What characterizes paranoia? Let's look at some criteria: "(1) suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her (2) is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates (3) is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her". Without the emphasized parts, this would be correct. But the obvious fact is that he has a lot of enemies, and this includes enemies in the secret services, and it is also obvious that these enemies really want to harm him. In such a situation, even a rational person will behave like a paranoid person, and of course, the suspicion, doubt, and fear will appear in some situations also be unjustified.

To attribute mental health issues to political enemies is something with traditions in Breshnev time Soviet psychiatry. Anti-Soviet political convictions were considered as sufficient evidence for schizophrenia. I would not doubt that there may be connections between political convictions and mental health / personality / sexual problems. I think, in particular, that Wilhelm Reich or Bob Altemeyer have some points. A situation quite symmetric to the IQ-race correlations: It is quite difficult to distinguish scientific research from attempts to find justification for dubious political aims, and discussions about this are full of ad hominem instead of scientific arguments.

 

The obvious fact is that his paranoid outbursts and behavior has generated the very enemies he is afraid of.
He came into the campaign paranoid, a conspiracy theorist who managed to become POTUS.
His behavior subsequently creating and self-justifying the very things he is paranoid about.
Yes indeed he does have a lot of enemies and he is by virtue of his paranoia generating more every day...as POTUS ( not just Trump the individual)

You would be happy to know that it is not just isolationism that Trump is generating but actual hard and strong anti-USA sentiment in so many peoples of the world that would not normally be so strong in their contempt.
El Salvador can now be added to a rather long list of anti-USA angst.

 

So does the attribution of all real power in any democracy to a "deep state".
So?

Trump is cutting back civilian oversight over the military, and government oversight over corporate behavior. There will be consequences. They will not be "isolationist".
This deep state of yours has long become a Venn diagram without a common intersection. There's nobody left to be in it.

Then you will of course quit basing your posts on them.

Nobody said they were. That reads as conscious avoidance.

It is much more severe, oppressive, and rigorously enforced. It is by far the predominant "variant", in the US. To the extent that PC does harm, that favored by Trump supporters does far more than any other "variant".

You will confuse yourself, as you have so often in the past, and as you did right there - the rightwing ones like Fox (most of ABC, CNN, etc; much of MSNBC etc) are the bulk of the mainstream media. If you exclude the ones like Fox you are excluding the bulk of the mainstream media.
Part of the reason you don't see that obvious fact is that you misuse valuable terms, and thereby destroy their meaning for you. You have no meaningful terminology available to you in these matters (for discussing market capitalist corporate authoritarianism as differentiated from any other kind, for example) and that handicaps you in discussing US media and US political correctness.

 

The Clintons are rightwing. The corporate US globalists are also rightwing. Trump is one of them, and so is everyone in his cabinet. The only representation of anything approaching "isolationism" in this administration was Bannon, his approach was to set up Trump to monkeywrench the government and sharply curb the military at the same time, while letting the global corporations run wild, and he's gone.

 

Maybe. So what? I don't attribute the real power in Swiss to any deep state.

Isolationism is not at all about civilian oversight over whatever, and even less about government oversight over firms. It is about foreign policy.

About my 'I also disagree about all the politics being only about "investment".':

Then learn to express what you mean in a more clear way, instead of writing "All US meddling is and will be in the service of "investment" - corporate power", whatever this means.

Ok, fighting against those who burn US flags is really horrible, given that this is what most Americans do almost every day. Instead, those who make nasty jokes about gays, women, various nationalities and so on are only such a small minority that fighting them is completely harmless.

Fine, but this simply describes your position, which is left of Clinton, ABC, CNN, etc. Given that I do not care about the reft/light distinction anyway, why should I care about your particular position in this field? I prefer to use the mean of the population as the center. And that means, given the election results, that Clinton is leftwing. There is not really a difference between US leftwing and US rightwing, which makes the decision which point is used to define the center quite irrelevant.

So what? The politics which give, as a result, what isolationists would like to reach continues.

Actually, the US is betraying the Syrian Kurds, openly inviting Erdogan to take the Kurdish enclave Afrin, but openly saying they will not care: http://aa.com.tr/en/americas/afrin-not-part-of-syria-coalition-mission-us-spokesman/1032793 So, the Afrin Kurds can now choose between genocide by the Turks or asking Russia/Syria for protection.

 

It means exactly what it says - look at your attempted paraphrase, and see the differences. The word "only", for example, you threw in there - not an accident, on your part. Deliberate alteration, for avoidance.

US foreign policy to a large extent comprises civilian governance of the US military and US government dealings with multinational corporations.

So? Whenever you bring in your all-purpose and all encompassing "deep state" that does everything your wingnut worldview failed to foresee, you align with that Soviet propaganda canard. If you think old Soviet lies invalidate current observational claims, start there: no deep state for you.

It's a median, not a mean. And that election yields no information about it - you can't tell anything about the left/right median of the population from that vote.
If you want to find that, you have to interview and survey on issues and compare the responses with Clinton's positions - if you did, you would find that the center of the US population is left of Clinton; a long way left.
And even then, you would still be making the ridiculous mistake of assigning the two halves of a geographically aggregated population labels that may or may not reflect their views at all. It's certainly possible for the populations of entire countries to be left or right of other entire countries - for entire large regions, even most of the planet, to be mostly left or right, politically. There's no Bell curve here.

No, it doesn't. It describes Clinton's long established and consistent position on the left/right political axis - well to the right of center - and CNN/ABC/Fox etc standard underlying frame and viewpoint in delivering the news - which is not liberal.

Isolationists want expanded, expensive, and risk-laden foreign military ventures without civilian oversight? Odd.

 

(Too lazy to search for irrelevant differences between an irrelevant remark and my reply to it.)

So you probably talk about different things if you talk about US foreign policy. I talk about an uncontrolled military, uncontrolled secret services, and a State Department with the main job of blackmailing foreign politicians and organizing regime changes against those who refuse to follow.

"Deep state" is a phrase which I have never heard in Soviet time, it played no role at all in Soviet propaganda. I use it because explaining what the US is doing using only the official state seems impossible.

Ups. Point for you.

Given that I need only an extremely rough estimate, I can. And if your surveys would be correct, how do you explain that the majority left of Clinton did not result in Clinton winning the election? The simple picture would be one candidate on the left and on the right, all left of the left candidate vote for the left candidate, all right of the right candidate for the right one, and the election campaign is about the center. Ok, she won the "popular vote" and there was a problem with the mobilization of voters so that in principle the median left of Clinton is not impossible. But "a long way left"? I doubt.

I make no error because I do not exclude this possibility at all. This is what makes the American ideological differences between the American left and American right so irrelevant for the rest of the world. There is nothing, no content, which distinguishes left from right in an objective way. You project your own ideas about important left-right distinctions here. For me, left and right are nothing but quite irrelevant labels for the actual political situation in a particular country in a particular moment. The median US voter would be a 2% extremal fringe Navalny supporter in Russia.

Learn to read. What I listed as the results liked by isolationists are not at all foreign military ventures. So, in Syria was the result less US money for the childheadcutters, in Iraq no military venture to support the Kurds, in Korea the start of negotiations between North and South, in Iran the failure of a regime change attempt, in Russia fewer possibilities for the US embassy to organize regime change.

And it was not at all about your "civilian oversight". AFAIU "civilian oversight" is nothing but a euphemism for control of the military by politicians who have no idea about the reality of war but can win elections by hawkish warmongering. A military which does what it likes without even caring about what the government says, with Obama time Pentagon openly refusing to follow what Kelly has negotiated with the Russians and bombing the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor supporting Daesh as an example, is, of course, very dangerous too. But nonetheless less dangerous than a warmonger like Clinton ruling it. The military will at least not start a nuclear war, knowing more or less what would be the results, US politicians can easily start one, given their level of education and knowledge of reality.

 

Yes, you do. You exclude it from even your vocabulary. It's as if one were to use words such as "mouse" and "bird" to apply to relative ecological roles, instead of fundamental biological structures - and then write essays about "mice" like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weta

Liberal, not left and right, originally here - you slide all over the place because you have abandoned meaning in your terminology.
The left/right axis is the same in America as elsewhere, or your terms are meaningless. You have no axis. And so they are.
The ideological differences between American political Parties look irrelevant to you because they are both ideologically rightwing authoritarian - and you can't see that one of them has gone fascist, because you can't see fascism.

The term is English, the concept is Soviet propaganda standard. It explains nothing, when you use it, because you have no idea who or what it is - your ascriptions are incoherent and self-contradictory.

Same as me, only missing some big stuff: You ignore the effects of Trump's actions and proposals on that military and those secret services (expansion and increased emphasis, especially mercenary wings and para-auxiliaries), and the role of the State Department in other matters. You also, as always, completely overlook the role of capitalist corporations in all of the bad stuff you dislike - including the military and secret service bad stuff, and especially the mercenary and paramilitary bad stuff - and the consequences of reducing government controls and curbs over them.
Fascism - you never see it coming.

With luck, you will never find out what the US military can and will do with all civilian governmental accountability removed and large international corporate interests at hand. But you will need some luck - because that's the direction Trump is taking the country.

Trump is the least educated and least reality-familiar US politician ever elected President.
No policy wonk State Department official like Clinton (well educated, much more familiar with reality than Trump) would start a nuclear war on purpose - Trump (unlike Clinton) may start one by accident, because he doesn't care one way or the other, and he doesn't know anything about nuclear weapons.

You persist in getting the relative natures of Trump and Clinton reversed - that is a common pattern in US politics among those getting all their information from the US wingnut media feeds, as you appear to: in 2004 surveys showed most W voters had mentally assigned Kerry's political positions on key issues to W, for example.
And look at this:

That's straight from the US wingnut media feed - bubble world stuff, aimed at the rubes.

Given that you need an estimate not completely wrong, you can't.

The mainstream media in the US is not liberal. It is rightwing corporate owned, and authoritarian in basic viewpoint. Start there.

 

and I might add to Iceaura's post, the military are just itching to try out all their new toys as boys with a love of weapons and fighting tend to do...eh... tactical nukes with limited fallout...uhm... stealth bombers that no one can see (even the pilot hee hee), laser guided orbital strikes orchestrated from someones mobile phone app....and all that stuff that was sci fi only a few years ago... just itching to give it a go and see how it "burns". They will also be pushing Trump into a war even if not consciously doing so.

 

Just finished reading Fire and Fury (listened to on audible)

• Confirmed all my beliefs that Trump is a moronic pig boar, he desires only the be liked and adored as a "winner" and has the intellect of a child in the body of a 71 year old.
  • Trump is a sexist adulterer who openly proclaims he married a "trophy wife", has sex with prostitutes and attempts to have sex with the wives of other men, does not trust other men and see women as a more benign child like creatures only trying to attach themselves to men. He is practically right out of Madmen!
  • He is devoid of any impulse control or as the author puts it "executive function". Trump believes what ever comes out of his mouth as fact (delusional > liar) he can't stay on a script and even his ability to read more than on paragraph is in question.
  • Everyone, even his own staff see him as a idiot. You would need to be insane, delusion or as dumb as him not to see it.
• None other then Bannon thought they were going to win and Trump had tentative plans to start his own TV channel after the election and blaming his lose on Hillary rigging the election. When they won Melania Trump was grief stricken, trump was horrified but without hours came around to the belief that he could do it and that he was truly great. His staff when from shock to a "maybe we can make this work" mentality.
  
• The main divide in the first year was between Bannon and Ivanka/Jarrad or "jarvanka" as the author puts it. Bannon representing alt-right ideology and jarvanka representing a more moderate republican even neo-liberal democrat view point.
  • Bannon was behind the Paris accord dropping and the Muslim ban.
  • Bannon wanted to pull out of Afghanistan, Jarvanka want to listen to the military and do what ever the pentagon suggests.
    
  • Jarvanka wanted to stay in the paris accord, wanted to keep obamacare and try desperately to make their father look and act presidential.
  • Jarvanka did get Comey fired as they greatly fear an FBI investigation into them and their holdings
    
  • Jarvanka (according to Bannon) were the ones behind the hiring of scaramucci
  • Jarvanka despite their more moderate bend are clearly not that smart (don't fall far from the tree) but Bannon blames them for the hiring of Kelly and then his firing.
    • Kelly was apparently hired after Rancid Pubis failed to run the white house and be anything but a kiss ass.
      
    • After which time the author was removed by Kelly.
• Trump openly said "why can't we just have medicare cover everyone?" before republican elite quietly told him that was impossible to pass.
  • Trump is devoid of any scrupulous, principles, ideology: if you had a democrat sweet talk him he would vote democrat, if you have alt-righter sweet talk him he will vote alt-right, etc, it all seems to depend on who get the last word with him.
• Trump does have loyality though, he wanted to give the supreme court seat or Attorney General to giuliani or chris christie, he does not speak ill of the alt-right simply because he is loyal to them for electing him, not because he agree with their ideology or can even comprehend it.
  • Rancid Pubis was hired as chief of staff by trump as payment for his loyalty, but was a punching bag after that by everyone.
    
  • His loyalty ends if you turn on him or proclaim you "won" at his perceived expense, ever, he can't stand that.

 

Ok, iceaura is back in the usual "you are stupid" mode without giving any interesting arguments, so, EOD from my side.

 

I just agreed with your own explicit position and self-assessment:

As noted, by your own description, you have no meaningful terms for discussing political ideology, for describing or comparing these actual political situations in particular countries at particular moments. Your language has been ruined, and your mind thereby crippled, as Orwell foresaw. Even the basic, crude, left/right distinctions are impossible for you to keep straight. And so you are a patsy for propaganda, at which the US rightwing authoritarian corporate professionals are the best that ever were - you have no chance.

And so your posts have some interest here - they reflect the propaganda push of the day from the US authoritarian right. How is Trump being marketed these days, to the Republican base?

Apparently: As a nationalist and isolationist, someone in control of the military who would use the military sparingly and for genuine defense of the country only, as having a stealth agenda of good for the country which is furthered by the media PC turmoil he kicks up as a distraction, someone whose vulgarity reflects his common touch and pranks the snobs, etc.

And, significantly, not as a Republican - not as a standard bearer for the Republican Party. That ship has no captain, and neither Trump nor the Republican Congress take the other down. There will be some (many)Republicans who declare themselves "Independent" or "No Labels" or "Tea Party" or whatever because ofTrump vulgarity and (incoming) criminal associations, but this will not mean they actually oppose, as in vote and speak out against, anything the Republican Congress does.

 

that is spot-on.

 

After the obligatory "you are stupid" incantation, something more interesting appeared:

Is this something new? My impression was that the split between Trump and the Republican establishment was there all the time. And it will not go away. For the simple reason that this part consists of globalists much closer to Clinton than to Trump. If they cooperate with Trump in some questions, this is purely pragmatic.

 

This?
You posting direct feed from the wingnut think tanks and media outlets as if it were informative and reality based is long familiar here. What do you think you are reading?

There is no policy split, and never was. Trump is a mainstream Reagan Republican on all major policy issues. You have been corrected in this matter several times now - but since you do not accept contradiction of wingnut propaganda, and that observation does conflict with it, you are unable to learn these basic facts of American politics.

Meanwhile, the Mueller investigation now includes connections between Russian bankers and the NRA, during the 2016 campaign.

 

The only split I know of is more about political correctness(*) in what info is released to the public. other wise trump is Repub through and through... ( whilst giving the impression of independence to minimize the repub puppet label. - a key part of his election strategy IMO)

(*) actually if it was just an issue of political correctness and not impulsive decisions making on the fly with little to zero regard to consequences his repub presidency wouldn't be under so much fire...

 

often, the dumbest people in this world become successful. you just have to be mainstream. whoopie and maybe joy are the only ones who have any legitimate points on this panel.

listen to these christians make excuses such as 'well, he's not loving, whether he cheats on his wife or not' or the other stupid line such as 'my faith taught me that abortion is murder'. really? you need a religion for you to figure out technically if abortion is murder as in ending a life? of course it is but we kill all the time, depending on the context.

untrustworthy. look at all those people who voted for trump but what makes them scum is the fact they tout themselves as the moral ones and those of family values. a total contradiction. they are pro-life but don't care what happens to that life, so they are worse than those who euthanize (abortion). i find their pro-life stance suspicious considering the inhumane values and policies they have in most other areas. it does very well match up with the idea of the reincarnation trap the gnostics were warning or enlightening others about. it's as if they want a slew of people to be trapped and miserable on this planet to oppress or use for their benefit.

the gnostics were right, their values do seem to coincide with the demiurge concept. and of course, the superior (gnostics) were killed off and you have all these less trustworthy people as the majority and they call themselves christians. this universe is peculiar in that it's always the inferior (worse people) that become the majority and the superior (better people) is more rare, instead of the other way around.

the fact my family was the same way as religious, conservative, republican yet had no real moral values except for outward reputation, is that just coincidence?