Trump as tragicomedy

[Cortopassi]

I think we are long past the idea that the way Trump operates is all part of a strategy. For whatever reason the way he operates worked in the corporate world, but not so much in the political one.

Would I vote for a pimp and three hookers who could put the country back on track? No. Some level of morality and decency has to be part of the job. I would vote for someone who:

1) makes it clear that the US does not need military bases all over the world and does not need to have a military budget the size of the next 10 (or whatever) countries combined and repurposes that money and talent at home.
2) knows how to make, and live within a real balanced budget
3) figures out the whole medical care/prescription drug fiasco
4) small kids can look up to and feel good about him/her as president
5) does not make decisions based off special interest lobbying but rather what's best for the country.

among some other things. But those are the big five.

Everything has become a conservative/liberal arguing point. Nothing seems to be discussed from a what's best for America standpoint much anymore.

Stuper, your comments about McCain, I tend to echo those. I do not want to disparage the dead, and he seemed to be a decent guy, but at least some of your points are correct, esp. being too hawkish on war.

[Maddy]

Did you ever think you'd see a time when the repeal of the First Amendment was being seriously debated? That a small conglomerate of media and tech companies would be effectively controlling the content of public speech? That peaceful conservative speech would be routinely quelled by the threat of political persecution and by frequently-acted-out threats of violence? That candidates for public office would be subjected to searching intrusions of such a personal and invasive nature that only those in control of the political extortion apparatus would dare run? That a sitting congresswoman could seriously boast of a national database so powerful as to virtually guarantee the Elite's stranglehold over future elections? That dissenting voices on issues that matter can expect their friends to be charged with crimes and their attorneys' offices to be searched? That an unelected, unaccountable, fourth branch of government would eclipse all others, and that it would become so powerful as to be effectively beyond the executive's control?

The game has changed. If you want character in your life, find it in your family, your friends, your church. This is a fight for the constitutional republic, and the other side is no longer playing by any rules. Thankfully, conservatives are beginning to understand that.

[dualstow]

I can find plenty of places on the internet where people claim

Yeah, you run with that.
Anything I can say is just pablum for the masses.

[dualstow]

Regarding McCain, I just saw this article this morning. It's pretty good.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... st/568582/

Tsk, tsk, Desert. Isn't that a little mainstream? You have to find something in infowars for it to be the truth. /s
Well, I'm getting on a train, and I say that lest anyone think I'm leaving in a huff; I'm not.

[clacy]

A new NAFTA deal with Mexico will be announced this week. That's very exciting.

Renegotiated and more favorable to the US. It's weird to me how easy that was to do, and I wonder why our previous Presidents didn't even try?

[stuper1]

Did you ever think you'd see a time when the repeal of the First Amendment was being seriously debated? That a small conglomerate of media and tech companies would be effectively controlling the content of public speech? That peaceful conservative speech would be routinely quelled by the threat of political persecution and by frequently-acted-out threats of violence? That candidates for public office would be subjected to searching intrusions of such a personal and invasive nature that only those in control of the political extortion apparatus would dare run? That a sitting congresswoman could seriously boast of a national database so powerful as to virtually guarantee the Elite's stranglehold over future elections? That dissenting voices on issues that matter can expect their friends to be charged with crimes and their attorneys' offices to be searched? That an unelected, unaccountable, fourth branch of government would eclipse all others, and that it would become so powerful as to be effectively beyond the executive's control?

The game has changed. If you want character in your life, find it in your family, your friends, your church. This is a fight for the constitutional republic, and the other side is no longer playing by any rules. Thankfully, conservatives are beginning to understand that.

Maddy says that if you want character in your life, find it in your family, your friends, your church. These are very wise words, and that was my point about McCain. I really have no idea whether he was a good guy or not (frankly, my hunch is that he wasn't, but that's just my hunch). I can find plenty of people on the internet who say he was great, and I can find some who say he was awful. Which group is telling the truth? I really have no way of knowing. I suppose I could spend weeks reading everything available on the internet and try to weigh it all up, but I doubt that would really work. Just because 90% of the people say one thing doesn't make it true. A lot of the stuff that people say is just repeating stuff that they heard somebody else say.

[stuper1]

And now the US media moguls are only too happy to report that some Russian paper (probably very obscure and irrelevant) wishes for McCain to burn in hell. Of course, the US media should use his death to try to create more friction between the US and Russia, since that seemed to be the sort of thing that McCain lived for. So, who could blame the Russians if they did wish him to burn in hell? Heck, if I believed that was how things worked, I might wish that upon him for all of the carnage he wrought upon this planet. And yet for all of his talk about defending the US, he did little or nothing to strengthen our extremely porous border.

[Cortopassi]

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/

[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?

[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.