Trump as tragicomedy

[tim47]

Back to Desert, I do not think Trump has any clue re unintended consequences. Really, there is little thinking here re the deep consequences of his executive actions. He has a pretty long history of simply filing for bankruptcy when things do not go his way. Just not a useful tool as the president, and he still tries in he’s own way...and yes, he still has useful instincts in our economic environment...

[Maddy]

Maddy I really don't know where you are your getting your information from because I have a very different interpretation of reality.

I think you've said that you were a fan of Alan Derschowitz. I've found his arguments to be hardly much more convincing than many Trump detractors... is there anyone else you'd recommend following that has helped most-color your opinion on this stuff?

There really isn't anybody that I follow closely; as far as news I probably read much the same stuff as you do. However, I've never completely given up the legal analysis gig, nor my tangential involvement in cases. Being able to watch how the law is evolving and how the law is being distorted in service of a singular political agenda gives you a view that isn't tarnished by anybody's spin.

You might have misunderstood my comment about Alan Derschowitz. I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of his, but since law school days he was well known as a constitutional scholar, a staunch defender of individual liberties, and very much the darling of the Left. So when Derschowitz finds himself opposed to "his own" on just about all the issues that matter, you can pretty well bet that the latter has taken a seriously wrong turn.

[moda0306]

Maddy I really don't know where you are your getting your information from because I have a very different interpretation of reality.

I think you've said that you were a fan of Alan Derschowitz. I've found his arguments to be hardly much more convincing than many Trump detractors... is there anyone else you'd recommend following that has helped most-color your opinion on this stuff?

There really isn't anybody that I follow closely; as far as news I probably read much the same stuff as you do. However, I've never completely given up the legal analysis gig, nor my tangential involvement in cases. Being able to watch how the law is evolving and how the law is being distorted in service of a singular political agenda gives you a view that isn't tarnished by anybody's spin.

You might have misunderstood my comment about Alan Derschowitz. I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of his, but since law school days he was well known as a constitutional scholar, a staunch defender of individual liberties, and very much the darling of the Left. So when Derschowitz finds himself opposed to "his own" on just about all the issues that matter, you can pretty well bet that the latter has taken a seriously wrong turn.

Well maybe Derschowitz is just... wrong? I know a lot of leftists that can't stand the guy... and that was well-before Trump.

But even so it sounds like he's hardly a pillar of your opinions.

If you think that the "law is evolving & being distorted in service of a singular political agenda," and it seems like you think it's a "leftist" agenda, how can you align that with your assertion that it's also beholden to international corporate profiteering.

To me, "leftists" and international corporate interests are at odds, unless you're focusing on "corporate democrats" like Hillary, but now we're not really talking about hard leftists any more but establishment corporate boobs.

Let me know where you think I have either you or things pegged incorrectly here.

[Maddy]

Moda, we've been here before and it didn't work out so well. So I'll just stick to my point, which is that you could trot out seven donkeys with stories to tell, and the majority of constitutional conservatives wouldn't care. They're not looking for moral stature; they got over that when they held their collective nose and voted for him anyway because he was the only candidate who could break the establishment's stranglehold on Washington.

[Kbg]

McCain was a complex guy and like most humans who have lived he had his high points and low points. I think with any human life we should celebrate a person's good while not necessarily giving them a pass on the bad.

High points
- Courage, honor and grit as a POW
- Bipartisanship...standing up for a more civil political discourse

Low points
- First marriage/infidelity
- He could be very mean/vindictive when he wanted to be

I think at the end of the day he loved his country and called things as he saw them.

I also think it is pretty clear folks are putting more weights on the good side of the scale than the negative side...and I think that's about right.

[clacy]

McCain was a complex guy and like most humans who have lived he had his high points and low points. I think with any human life we should celebrate a person's good while not necessarily giving them a pass on the bad.

High points
- Courage, honor and grit as a POW
- Bipartisanship...standing up for a more civil political discourse

Low points
- First marriage/infidelity
- He could be very mean/vindictive when he wanted to be

I think at the end of the day he loved his country and called things as he saw them.

I also think it is pretty clear folks are putting more weights on the good side of the scale than the negative side...and I think that's about right.

He was also a Geo-political Hawk/Neo-Con of the highest order. Off the top of my head, he was a major force in speaking in favor of invading:

Afghanistan
Iraq
Syria
Libya

He also advocated for involvement with (including supporting rebel and military factions) in:

Bosnia
Georgia
Ukraine
Kosovo
Nigeria
Iran

The guy has a lot of blood on his hands ala Bush/Cheney/Hillary. Hopefully he did it for the right reasons, but either way, they royally f*cked up an entire section of the world.

He seemed almost blood thirsty and would play the "don't question my motives, I'm a POW" card whenever someone opposed his worldview.

[Maddy]

Significantly, all that interventionism involved the same short list of beneficiaries.

[moda0306]

Significantly, all that interventionism involved the same short list of beneficiaries.

I agree with this. And it's the same short list that Trump and his party are working tirelessly for right now.

Yeah I guess I'm not getting Maddy's (apparent, IMO) conflation of "The Left" (aka, the hard-left I take it?) with establishment deep-state corporatist interventionist war-hawks.

The apparent idea that Antifa brick-thrower = Some namby-pamby leftist hippie = liberal school teacher = Hillary/Schumer/Pilosi-corporate-democrats.

Each of these groups has glaring flaws IMO... but their flaws are very different. I don't see how someone can see them as the same monolithic force in America seems ridiculous to me... even if you think the opposition to Trump is driven mostly by "nefarious" interests.

[Kbg]

McCain was a complex guy and like most humans who have lived he had his high points and low points. I think with any human life we should celebrate a person's good while not necessarily giving them a pass on the bad.

High points
- Courage, honor and grit as a POW
- Bipartisanship...standing up for a more civil political discourse

Low points
- First marriage/infidelity
- He could be very mean/vindictive when he wanted to be

I think at the end of the day he loved his country and called things as he saw them.

I also think it is pretty clear folks are putting more weights on the good side of the scale than the negative side...and I think that's about right.

He was also a Geo-political Hawk/Neo-Con of the highest order. Off the top of my head, he was a major force in speaking in favor of invading:

Afghanistan
Iraq
Syria
Libya

He also advocated for involvement with (including supporting rebel and military factions) in:

Bosnia
Georgia
Ukraine
Kosovo
Nigeria
Iran

The guy has a lot of blood on his hands ala Bush/Cheney/Hillary. Hopefully he did it for the right reasons, but either way, they royally f*cked up an entire section of the world.

He seemed almost blood thirsty and would play the "don't question my motives, I'm a POW" card whenever someone opposed his worldview.

No doubt he was a Hawk, even too much for me. If you are a no wars anytime kinda person then we have nothing to discuss, but rather than list a set of countries with conflict you should also list the causal reason for the conflict in each. And if you know your history, you also know with the exception of Iraq the second time, the US instigated exactly zero of those conflicts and we have generally been on the side of the "good" guys though I'll be the first to admit "good" gets pretty gray in a couple.

[Kbg]

Significantly, all that interventionism involved the same short list of beneficiaries.

List them Maddy.

[moda0306]

Significantly, all that interventionism involved the same short list of beneficiaries.

I agree with this. And it's the same short list that Trump and his party are working tirelessly for right now.

Yeah I guess I'm not getting Maddy's (apparent, IMO) conflation of "The Left" (aka, the hard-left I take it?) with establishment deep-state corporatist interventionist war-hawks.

The apparent idea that Antifa brick-thrower = Some namby-pamby leftist hippie = liberal school teacher = Hillary/Schumer/Pilosi-corporate-democrats.

Each of these groups has glaring flaws IMO... but their flaws are very different. I don't see how someone can see them as the same monolithic force in America seems ridiculous to me... even if you think the opposition to Trump is driven mostly by "nefarious" interests.

Antifa brick-thrower = Some namby-pamby leftist hippie = liberal school teacher = easy to manipulate emotionally driven and reactive (aka useful idiots ) + Hillary/Schumer/Pilosi-corporate-democrats. the beneficiaries of manipulating the former groups to achieve and maintain power..

edit to add... thinking this is a left right thing at the level of deep-state globalist corporatist is probably false. the true ideology at that level is "power, control, money," thinking that one side is better because they appeal to left of center, right of center, far left, or far right, is a mistake. willing to say anything that gives them power, control, money, is where they are really coming from...

Well their desired policy prescriptions are quite different, but to the degree in a two-party duopoly that the former feels motivated to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in the latter I sort of see what you mean.

That said, though, you could easily make the same argument towards the less-establishment wings of Republicans, who consistently vote on social signal issues or certain pet libertarian issues while "Corporatist Republicans" enact massive corporate tax-cuts (while the military exists almost solely as a protectorate of their global corporate interests), the most corporate-friendly aspects of so-called "free-trade" deals, and

So in this case, the problem isn't "the left," but "the political-establishment center," two wings of which use their respective "useful idiots" in the public. And I would say that Desert is obviously correct that with the exception of a couple angles of a couple issues, and the fact that he's an utterly bombastic clown, that Trump is pretty friendly to the establishment corporatist interests Maddy seems to dislike.

But even if you could jumble together an argument that Trump is consistently and positively anti-establishment, once again, the problem isn't "the left." It's "the corporatist center."

[Maddy]

Yeah I guess I'm not getting Maddy's (apparent, IMO) conflation of "The Left" (aka, the hard-left I take it?) with establishment deep-state corporatist interventionist war-hawks.

The apparent idea that Antifa brick-thrower = Some namby-pamby leftist hippie = liberal school teacher = Hillary/Schumer/Pilosi-corporate-democrats.

Each of these groups has glaring flaws IMO... but their flaws are very different. I don't see how someone can see them as the same monolithic force in America seems ridiculous to me...

When you realize that the Antifa brick-throwers are being financed by the likes of George Soros, the connection becomes obvious.

[moda0306]

Yeah I guess I'm not getting Maddy's (apparent, IMO) conflation of "The Left" (aka, the hard-left I take it?) with establishment deep-state corporatist interventionist war-hawks.

The apparent idea that Antifa brick-thrower = Some namby-pamby leftist hippie = liberal school teacher = Hillary/Schumer/Pilosi-corporate-democrats.

Each of these groups has glaring flaws IMO... but their flaws are very different. I don't see how someone can see them as the same monolithic force in America seems ridiculous to me...

When you realize that the Antifa brick-throwers are being financed by the likes of George Soros, the connection becomes obvious.

What are your sources confirming this is actually true and not just an Alex Jones conspiracy theory?

What benefits do the likes of George Soros have by funding folks making liberal ideas/actors look ridiculous to the more moderate public? Or even if he is and there are benefits to his cause, are we sure that Soros represents a monolithic political force?

[Kbg]

The Dems have Soros, the Pubs have the Koch's. What's the difference really?

[Maddy]

Here's an article I read some months ago regarding Soros:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... py/547247/

I'd like to see a source from Maddy though.

Nope. If you're really interested (and I don't believe you are), there are a ton of sources on the internet that link to the 990s. It's all in the public record.

[clacy]

The Dems have Soros, the Pubs have the Koch's. What's the difference really?

Koch's hate Trump, and the Republican Party is now the Trump party. I predict that the Koch's will back Dems by 2020.

They want their corporatocracy and cheap labor.

[dualstow]

Some stuff is starting to overshadow the "be nice because he's dead" voices

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/op ... 9515140a77

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economic ... vkzs4AQUw/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/27/t ... hn-mccain/

I read the first article and it was pretty frustrating. “Be nice because he’s dead” is the quintessential straw man comment. I admired his character when he was alive (though I did not vote for him). I certainly don’t think McCain was perfect, flawless. I think he had character.

But this article, jeez. A Native American with a chip on her shoulder could’ve submitted that huffpost article about virtually any person who was for the Iraq War, the Afghanistan war, or even just the surge. It is so pathetically not about McCain and his long history that I don’t know how it got published. Weak.

[moda0306]

The Dems have Soros, the Pubs have the Koch's. What's the difference really?

Koch's hate Trump, and the Republican Party is now the Trump party. I predict that the Koch's will back Dems by 2020.

They want their corporatocracy and cheap labor.

So are the Koch's part of "the left?"

Further, I don't think they hate him. Trump was actually right when he said that he gave them huge tax cuts and regulatory decreases. If they lose a bit on trade-wars they'll still be net-beneficiaries of the Trump presidency methinks.

[clacy]

So are the Koch's part of "the left?"

Further, I don't think they hate him. Trump was actually right when he said that he gave them huge tax cuts and regulatory decreases. If they lose a bit on trade-wars they'll still be net-beneficiaries of the Trump presidency methinks.

No, the Kochs are neo-cons. Neo-cons are now far more aligned with the Clinton-wing of the Dem party than Trump.

As I see it, Trump has essentially remade the Republican party into a coalition between conservatives and the working class in the upper midwest.

Now the 2 Dem factions are playing tug-of-war for control of their party. You have the Socialist/ultra-progressives battling with the old Neo-lib/corporatists for the future of the Dem party.

Then you have the displaced Neo-cons who were heavily in favor of globalism. They now are far more closely aligned with the Clinton/Obama corporatist wing of the Dems now. When people used to say that both parties are basically the same, that's what they meant (back when the Neo-cons ala Bush controlled the R's and the Clintons/Obama controlled the D's). The R's and D's duked it out politically in races, but usually had fairly minor disagreements about most economic and geo-political policy issues.

That is how I see people like Koch going. They are not going to like the rising wages from protectionist policies focused on the working class in America.

[Mountaineer]

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, and the most widely read weekly journal of progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.

Godwin's Law rules! It appears a goal of The Nation is to create heaven on earth via its articles. The bias against Trump (via not so subtle allusions to Hitler) is obvious in the linked article. The articles I looked at are not quite SJW on steroids but lean heavily that way in my opinion. Not to get too religious, but this is a case where the proper distinction of God's Law and God's Gospel is really helpful. Life is so much less stressful and more peaceful when we try to build each other and our government up rather than tear each other down.

[moda0306]

Here's an article I read some months ago regarding Soros:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... py/547247/

I'd like to see a source from Maddy though.

Nope. If you're really interested (and I don't believe you are), there are a ton of sources on the internet that link to the 990s. It's all in the public record.

That's a classic Alex Jones response (yes, I used to watch him occasionally on local TV back in the early 2000's in Austin, for entertainment value). I'm guessing your basic ideology comes from Jones and/or D'Souza. That's a tough mental place to live, I'm thinking. The globalist leftists are behind every bad thing that happens in the world, and only Trump can save us.

While I hate to immediately rush to D'Souza/Jones conspiracy nonsense, since Maddy didn't name them specifically when I asked for sources, it certainly feels a bit off...

"The truth is out there! Somewhere... but EVERYWHERE... if you can find it... but its OBVIOUS... but I don't have regular sources."

IDK it just feels like one of those things that make sense if you pre-suppose all the premises buried in the conclusions its trying to get you to believe, as a narrative that constantly "begs the question."

But IDK I probably used to say the same about some conspiracies that I believe in large parts of today. I try to glean the gems out of people's narratives even if I don't agree with all of them. For instance, for all the garbage analysis Austrian Economics has put out since the Great Recession & Financial Crisis, I think they have a lot to add that I effectively brushed aside regarding the Federal Reserve (from a corruption/cronyism standpoint... not a "OMG HYPERINFLATION AND ARTIFICIALLY LOW INTEREST RATES" perspective).

Also I think "conspiracy theories' get way too much negative press and attitude by folks. The "conspiracy theory" of 9/11 trutherism did WAY less damage than the establishment media/govt/publicly-parroted narrative of almost anything positively related to national security & foreign interventions for several years after 9/11. So I have a lot more patience with conspiracy theories than I did back then. There's usually something in their narratives that has some very useful truth.

So anyway, I just wish Maddy would just build us a better roadmap to these conclusions we are supposed to be arriving at. All the stuff Chomsky quotes in his "conspiracy theory narratives" is "public information" as well, but I would never ask folks to just sort through state department documents to believe me when I say "the government has rarely had good intentions overseas." I'd link you to one of 20 Chomsky lectures, where he specifically lists his sources. I just don't know how Maddy is building up those conclusions about "The Left" being such a unique and monolithic political force...

[Maddy]

I just don't know how Maddy is building up those conclusions about "The Left" being such a unique and monolithic political force...

its not that the left is a unique an monolithic political force, its that those who would seek to be at the top of any monolithic political force have shared goals and therefore shared methodology, (almost always requiring more government in some form) I have come to a point where I struggle to see any real difference between the Dick Cheney's of the world riling up the "patriotism of fly over country red-necks (useful idiots) to get the military industrial complex more power control money, and the George Soros's of the world riling up the antifa left wing militants and sjw millennials (useful idiots) to get more power control and money.. especially when neither one of those "great changes in direction" ever reduces the amount of power control and money that was just given to the so called "other side" ...

No, Moda, as I said before, I'm just not interested in engaging you. You've done this "Show me your sources" routine so many times that by now the script has become predictable. No matter what my source, you'll find some reason for rejecting it, and when confronted with evidence you cannot deny, you'll simply move to a new and different reason for deprecating the thesis. And I'll have wasted precious hours throwing evidence at you that you're predisposed to reject. Yesterday, your comeback was that the connection between Soros and Antifa is solely in the imagination of Alex Jones. If I showed you the 990 from AGJ or OSI, you'd simply come up with some other reason to reject my point. Maybe it would be that the relationship between Soros and AGJ is too attenuated, or that a handful of Republicans have provided funding to similar organizations, or that Antifa is not representative of the Left. I'm just not interested in going through this again. You've simply lost your credibility with me at this point.

[Kbg]

No, Moda, as I said before, I'm just not interested in engaging you. You've done this "Show me your sources" routine so many times that by now the script has become predictable. No matter what my source, you'll find some reason for rejecting it, and when confronted with evidence you cannot deny, you'll simply move to a new and different reason for deprecating the thesis. And I'll have wasted precious hours throwing evidence at you that you're predisposed to reject. Yesterday, your comeback was that the connection between Soros and Antifa is solely in the imagination of Alex Jones. If I showed you the 990 from AGJ or OSI, you'd simply come up with some other reason to reject my point. Maybe it would be that the relationship between Soros and AGJ is too attenuated, or that a handful of Republicans have provided funding to similar organizations, or that Antifa is not representative of the Left. I'm just not interested in going through this again. You've simply lost your credibility with me at this point.

LOL! Busted!

This is why I rarely indulge in this stuff (I really have to be bored). There are very few people in today's world (it seems) that care to alter their opinions.

[Cortopassi]

No, Moda, as I said before, I'm just not interested in engaging you. You've done this "Show me your sources" routine so many times that by now the script has become predictable. No matter what my source, you'll find some reason for rejecting it, and when confronted with evidence you cannot deny, you'll simply move to a new and different reason for deprecating the thesis. And I'll have wasted precious hours throwing evidence at you that you're predisposed to reject. Yesterday, your comeback was that the connection between Soros and Antifa is solely in the imagination of Alex Jones. If I showed you the 990 from AGJ or OSI, you'd simply come up with some other reason to reject my point. Maybe it would be that the relationship between Soros and AGJ is too attenuated, or that a handful of Republicans have provided funding to similar organizations, or that Antifa is not representative of the Left. I'm just not interested in going through this again. You've simply lost your credibility with me at this point.

LOL! Busted!

This is why I rarely indulge in this stuff (I really have to be bored). There are very few people in today's world (it seems) that care to alter their opinions.

I definitely change my opinions over time!

2008, sick of Bush and war and wanted hope and change, voted for Obama over warmongering McCain.
2014, sick of Quinn as governor, voted Rauner
2016 sick of hope and change and not wanting war mongering Clinton, and the Clinton name, I voted Trump
2018, I regret greatly that I voted for Trump, but the other choice wasn't any better, so I fault the parties for letting these two get to the final round.
2018, hopeful the dems take the house, just to see Trump's head explode.
2018 hopeful Rauner gets destroyed in the election
2015-2017, listened to Rush on my drive home for lunch
2018, listen to Thom Hartmann most drives

About every 4 years or so I flip....!

[moda0306]

No, Moda, as I said before, I'm just not interested in engaging you. You've done this "Show me your sources" routine so many times that by now the script has become predictable. No matter what my source, you'll find some reason for rejecting it, and when confronted with evidence you cannot deny, you'll simply move to a new and different reason for deprecating the thesis. And I'll have wasted precious hours throwing evidence at you that you're predisposed to reject. Yesterday, your comeback was that the connection between Soros and Antifa is solely in the imagination of Alex Jones. If I showed you the 990 from AGJ or OSI, you'd simply come up with some other reason to reject my point. Maybe it would be that the relationship between Soros and AGJ is too attenuated, or that a handful of Republicans have provided funding to similar organizations, or that Antifa is not representative of the Left. I'm just not interested in going through this again. You've simply lost your credibility with me at this point.

Maddy,

The reason I repeat my "show me some sources" routine is that 1) you've barely provided any, 2) the few you have are weak or mixed-at-best, 3) none of them supported your new arguments about Soros' supporting too-far-leftish groups, and 4) even if he does or your other sources are correct about a few points, it doesn't deductively follow that there's a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Your "arguments" are just a bunch of anti-leftist question-begging. I'm trying to hand you a damn olive branch here and allow you to support your claims rather than looking like hotbed of right-wing conspiracy theories.

There's gotta be someone out there that writes articles that support the same arguments you would, right? Anyone? Any journalist or commentator that doesn't mind posting sources in their articles or takes a deeper dive into the issues? Give us ONE NAME and I'll do the digging for the 90% of us that aren't already wallowing in your fact-patterns & analysis? It takes a lot more than a 990 to prove a vast left-wing-only-but-still-establishment-corporatist-liberal-communist conspiracy.

If there isn't even ONE public analyst that is mostly on the same page as you on broad topics, maybe I am not the one who is "predisposed to reject" certain ideas.