Gyroscopic Investing

The way he's going after cnn in this AT&T deal, I'd say he's restoring vindictiveness and perhaps tyranny.

Thank you for posting this Libertarian666!

This is about the first positive development with the borders of the District of Columbia that I've been aware of for years...maybe decades. The article reads as though it's a continuation of an existing conversation, but I haven't seen any previous reporting on the topic. It's also a potentially unifying issue for both parties. Both have complained that each President has increased the power and reach of the executive branch. Rachel Maddow once devoted an entire show to the topic. Interestingly, I've never seen anyone state that Congress is partially to blame for passing "vague" laws that must be "clarified" with executive orders and guidance memos.

So does this qualify as "draining the swamp", and also distracting the press with bright shiny objects (e.g. Twitter posts, smarmy comments)? It makes me wonder what other substantial bits of governing are going on behind the scenes, unnoticed and unreported. That's actually almost worrying...maybe not all of the unnoticed governing is positive.

In fairness, if Trump wanted to be completely consistent about all this, he should withdraw any executive orders that affect American citizens, residents, or visitors "without due process" and that aren't clarifications of existing law.

I think this all depends on what you qualify as "the swamp." Regulatory inertia, agency power, etc could theoretically be considered part of it. But considering who he's posted as agency heads, placed in the perma-war surveillance state, and his general attitude towards his authority as president on policing, war and other issues, I see this as very weak evidence that he's non-authoritarian or "draining the swamp." This man is a walking swamp. The people he's put in power in his administration are as swampy as they come.

I care more about how the government treats actual human beings than massive state-enabled corporations. So perhaps that's where definitions and priorities are going to rub a bit.

Keep in mind I'm not saying that who he's putting in power is arguably a whole lot worse that who HRC would, or Obama did. But the idea that this guy is a breath of fresh air in any way imaginable is ludicrous to me. I've produced better anti-establishment candidates in my toilet.

moda0306 wrote:Keep in mind I'm not saying that who he's putting in power is arguably a whole lot worse that who HRC would, or Obama did. But the idea that this guy is a breath of fresh air in any way imaginable is ludicrous to me. I've produced better anti-establishment candidates in my toilet.

So, if the establishment would like us to believe apparently that the US constitution provides protection not just to US citizens but also to people who would like to immigrate here (i.e., the constitution effectively protects anybody in the whole world), and if Trump pushes back against that idea, you wouldn't call that a breath of fresh air? I certainly do.

stuper1 wrote:

moda0306 wrote:Keep in mind I'm not saying that who he's putting in power is arguably a whole lot worse that who HRC would, or Obama did. But the idea that this guy is a breath of fresh air in any way imaginable is ludicrous to me. I've produced better anti-establishment candidates in my toilet.

So, if the establishment would like us to believe apparently that the US constitution provides protection not just to US citizens but also to people who would like to immigrate here (i.e., the constitution effectively protects anybody in the whole world), and if Trump pushes back against that idea, you wouldn't call that a breath of fresh air? I certainly do.

As someone who opposes overly-centralized forms of authority, I reject the premise that a government could remove 95% of the world population of life or liberty without due process is a legitimate or desirable force.

You're free to have different priorities.

Like I said, it really comes down to what you think "the swamp" consists of, and what an "authoritarian" looks like. Really, ultimately, what do you think is "wrong" with our government, and to what degrees those problems compare to other problems.

I think this really just comes down to what we think the biggest problems that can either be caused or addressed by the government (or more specifically, the president) really are.

Lastly, though, "the establishment," to the degree that we can discuss it as a monolithic group, doesn't care so much about the "constitutional rights" of immigrants (perhaps except for how to use those issues to divide people), so much as their ability to add to the cheap labor pool of the U.S. and serve as social wedges to distract from the rottenness of some aspects of their neo-liberal economic ideas. "The establishment" is assuredly NOT civil libertarian. They are opportunists. Letting brown people work for cheap in America while they use it to get lower-class folks to vote against their interests is opportunism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... 2bd1e98682

So the commander in chief apparently does not have the authority to stop the military from spending precious taxpayer resources needed to defend the nation on "gender-reassignment" surgery. Because everyone knows this is a right granted to all Americans in the constitution.

farjean2 wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... 2bd1e98682

So the commander in chief apparently does not have the authority to stop the military from spending precious taxpayer resources needed to defend the nation on "gender-reassignment" surgery. Because everyone knows this is a right granted to all Americans in the constitution.

Interesting. But he could probably unilaterally start nuclear war...

Moda, what's gotten into you lately? You might want to check inside your bonnet. I think it's got a bee in it.

Can you name a politician or worldview that you do like? Or, let's say you were suddenly elected President. What would you like to see happen?

WiseOne wrote:Moda, what's gotten into you lately? You might want to check inside your bonnet. I think it's got a bee in it.

Can you name a politician or worldview that you do like? Or, let's say you were suddenly elected President. What would you like to see happen?

My last comment about nuclear war wasn't meant to seem spiteful or directed towards Trump (though imo obviously there is a lot of negative that could be directed towards him). More simply interesting where executive power can or can not be flexed.

Mainly, what was a mix of very legitimate to frankly ridiculous criticism of Obama on this forum has turned into turning the guns towards Hillary, establishment dems (currently the minority and in charge of no house), and some sjw rabble while we have a guy who can barely assemble a coherent thought in charge of foreign policy.

I do like Rand Paul when he's holding the power of the federal government in check and not admitting embarrassments like Jeff Sessions to the AG spot. I also like Bernie because he's relatively honest and consistent. I used to like Obama ok for how he carried himself, but as of about late-2014 or early-2015 I fell into a pretty strong civil-libertarian and anti-war position, so I started to lose a ton of respect for him and every other former president.

I'm a pretty huge civil libertarian so if I were president I'd probably disassemble the perma-war surveillance state. The rest (tax reform, environmental issues, etc) would require more congressional power so my political capital would be more poorly placed there, and it's less important imo. I don't find immigration to be a huge issue like some here. But even if I did, the idea that I do because I'm a fan of "the rule of law" would be laughable for reasons I've explained before... that humans almost without exception seem to value "the rule of law" far more in some instances (when they agree with it and find it important) than others.

That isn't to say people have to share my priorities. I'm not arguing that. But if I see sloppy rationalizations why "Trump is pretty decent but OMG 'the media' is just the worst and Hillary is still shrill and awful," I'm going to call it out. Same with assertions that Trump is anti-establishment, or that "the left" is materially crazier and more worthy of scorn than establishment corporatist war-mongers, of which Trump is unquestionably one.

moda0306 wrote:

WiseOne wrote:Moda, what's gotten into you lately? You might want to check inside your bonnet. I think it's got a bee in it.

Can you name a politician or worldview that you do like? Or, let's say you were suddenly elected President. What would you like to see happen?

My last comment about nuclear war wasn't meant to seem spiteful or directed towards Trump (though imo obviously there is a lot of negative that could be directed towards him). More simply interesting where executive power can or can not be flexed.

Mainly, what was a mix of very legitimate to frankly ridiculous criticism of Obama on this forum has turned into turning the guns towards Hillary, establishment dems (currently the minority and in charge of no house), and some sjw rabble while we have a guy who can barely assemble a coherent thought in charge of foreign policy.

I do like Rand Paul when he's holding the power of the federal government in check and not admitting embarrassments like Jeff Sessions to the AG spot. I also like Bernie because he's relatively honest and consistent. I used to like Obama ok for how he carried himself, but as of about late-2014 or early-2015 I fell into a pretty strong civil-libertarian and anti-war position, so I started to lose a ton of respect for him and every other former president.

I'm a pretty huge civil libertarian so if I were president I'd probably disassemble the perma-war surveillance state. The rest (tax reform, environmental issues, etc) would require more congressional power so my political capital would be more poorly placed there, and it's less important imo. I don't find immigration to be a huge issue like some here. But even if I did, the idea that I do because I'm a fan of "the rule of law" would be laughable for reasons I've explained before... that humans almost without exception seem to value "the rule of law" far more in some instances (when they agree with it and find it important) than others.

That isn't to say people have to share my priorities. I'm not arguing that. But if I see sloppy rationalizations why "Trump is pretty decent but OMG 'the media' is just the worst and Hillary is still shrill and awful," I'm going to call it out. Same with assertions that Trump is anti-establishment, or that "the left" is materially crazier and more worthy of scorn than establishment corporatist war-mongers, of which Trump is unquestionably one.

Re. "the left" is materially crazier:

Not crazier at all, but apparently not students of history and how their worldview has almost always not turned out so well for those under its dominion. That said, I may have a different view of the French revolution, Lenin, and Keynesian economics than "the left" adherents.

I think we'd agree quite a bit on a lot about the French Revolution, Leninism/Bolshevism and even some aspects of Keynesianism (though I don't consider the latter to be all-that radical compared to murderous revolutionary tirades).

When the Jacobins are at the doorstep, perhaps I'd agree with you more whether they deserve much discussion compared to the establishment republican majority in congress and the mostly-establishment buffoon heading the executive.

Moda, it's so much easier to read your posts when the ratio of information content to rant is higher - like it used to be, or like your post quoted below. Comments below are to add to discussion not to be contrarian.

moda0306 wrote: I'm a pretty huge civil libertarian so if I were president I'd probably disassemble the perma-war surveillance state. The rest (tax reform, environmental issues, etc) would require more congressional power so my political capital would be more poorly placed there, and it's less important imo.

No argument from me. What Edward Snowden did is not different from the actions of the guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers, but the difference in treatment of the two situations speaks volumes about what our government has become. Re tax reform, I actually think leveling the playing field for US-based corporations compared to the rest of the world, where business taxes are mostly in the form of a VAT instead of income taxes, is very important. It would have been nice to see a real effort in that direction, not the mess of a tax bill that we are currently faced with.

moda0306 wrote:I don't find immigration to be a huge issue like some here.

I do think immigration is a huge issue, but probably not for the reasons you are thinking, nor for the ugly sentiments attached to it by the Democratic establishment. It's about the income tax bill from New York state and city that I pay every year. There are several reasons New York's taxes are so high, such as the "nanny state" expenditures that have a way of adding up, and the ridiculous pension structure for city/state employees. The biggest item, though, is Medicaid - which is almost entirely paid out to recent immigrants, illegal and legal. It accounts for 31% of state spending in 2015 rising from 28% in 2010. (Source: Ballotpedia.) Because of New York's high taxes, people who have income to tax are leaving the state. The state's population is staying even, because the addition of new immigrants (largely unskilled/low wage/unemployable) balances the departures. This however is an unsustainable death spiral, and the only way to stop it is to implement a sensible immigration policy along the lines of what Australia, New Zealand, and Canada already have in place. I don't see what's so "xenophobic" about that.

moda0306 wrote:That isn't to say people have to share my priorities. I'm not arguing that. But if I see sloppy rationalizations why "Trump is pretty decent but OMG 'the media' is just the worst and Hillary is still shrill and awful," I'm going to call it out. Same with assertions that Trump is anti-establishment, or that "the left" is materially crazier and more worthy of scorn than establishment corporatist war-mongers, of which Trump is unquestionably one.

Well, I'm afraid I don't share your respect for the media and the Democratic establishment, but to each his own. I personally think the media has degenerated to the level of the National Enquirer and People magazine, i.e. the crud that people used to buy on supermarket checkout lines for pure entertainment value. I can't entirely blame them since those things make more money than the in-depth reporting that is so critical for an informed electorate. The unfortunate result is that any real work of the Trump administration, whether good or ill, is almost entirely below the radar because the media are too busy gleefully talking about Trump opening bottles of water or who doesn't like who in his administration. I do blame Trump for ineffective governing based on the meager evidence to which we have access, but I seriously could care less about his Tweets and other things that people seem to prefer hearing about.

WiseOne wrote:Moda, it's so much easier to read your posts when the ratio of information content to rant is higher - like it used to be, or like your post quoted below. Comments below are to add to discussion not to be contrarian.

moda0306 wrote: I'm a pretty huge civil libertarian so if I were president I'd probably disassemble the perma-war surveillance state. The rest (tax reform, environmental issues, etc) would require more congressional power so my political capital would be more poorly placed there, and it's less important imo.

No argument from me. What Edward Snowden did is not different from the actions of the guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers, but the difference in treatment of the two situations speaks volumes about what our government has become. Re tax reform, I actually think leveling the playing field for US-based corporations compared to the rest of the world, where business taxes are mostly in the form of a VAT instead of income taxes, is very important. It would have been nice to see a real effort in that direction, not the mess of a tax bill that we are currently faced with.

moda0306 wrote:I don't find immigration to be a huge issue like some here.

I do think immigration is a huge issue, but probably not for the reasons you are thinking, nor for the ugly sentiments attached to it by the Democratic establishment. It's about the income tax bill from New York state and city that I pay every year. There are several reasons New York's taxes are so high, such as the "nanny state" expenditures that have a way of adding up, and the ridiculous pension structure for city/state employees. The biggest item, though, is Medicaid - which is almost entirely paid out to recent immigrants, illegal and legal. It accounts for 31% of state spending in 2015 rising from 28% in 2010. (Source: Ballotpedia.) Because of New York's high taxes, people who have income to tax are leaving the state. The state's population is staying even, because the addition of new immigrants (largely unskilled/low wage/unemployable) balances the departures. This however is an unsustainable death spiral, and the only way to stop it is to implement a sensible immigration policy along the lines of what Australia, New Zealand, and Canada already have in place. I don't see what's so "xenophobic" about that.

moda0306 wrote:That isn't to say people have to share my priorities. I'm not arguing that. But if I see sloppy rationalizations why "Trump is pretty decent but OMG 'the media' is just the worst and Hillary is still shrill and awful," I'm going to call it out. Same with assertions that Trump is anti-establishment, or that "the left" is materially crazier and more worthy of scorn than establishment corporatist war-mongers, of which Trump is unquestionably one.

Well, I'm afraid I don't share your respect for the media and the Democratic establishment, but to each his own. I personally think the media has degenerated to the level of the National Enquirer and People magazine, i.e. the crud that people used to buy on supermarket checkout lines for pure entertainment value. I can't entirely blame them since those things make more money than the in-depth reporting that is so critical for an informed electorate. The unfortunate result is that any real work of the Trump administration, whether good or ill, is almost entirely below the radar because the media are too busy gleefully talking about Trump opening bottles of water or who doesn't like who in his administration. I do blame Trump for ineffective governing based on the meager evidence to which we have access, but I seriously could care less about his Tweets and other things that people seem to prefer hearing about.

I don't have respect for the media and dem establishment. I just don't find them to be materially more dangerous, dastardly or bombastic than the republican establishment and conservative "media" sources. They're two sides of the same coin imo.

Did I give the impression that I had respect for those groups??

moda0306 wrote: Did I give the impression that I had respect for those groups??

Yes. Thanks for clearing that up. Although, I've had a hard time reading/interpreting your posts so I may not have drawn the right conclusion.

Desert wrote:

dualstow wrote:The way he's going after cnn in this AT&T deal, I'd say he's restoring vindictiveness and perhaps tyranny.

He's certainly doing his best. Fortunately the checks and balances in our government have largely contained him, preventing him from passing anything of note, even with a GOP congress.

I did find it interesting that he came out and attacked CNN International on the same day Putin went after them. Those two definitely think a lot alike.

You just wrote a new defense for Trump: there’s no collusion to see here, just two great minds thinking alike.

Desert wrote:

dualstow wrote:The way he's going after cnn in this AT&T deal, I'd say he's restoring vindictiveness and perhaps tyranny.

He's certainly doing his best. Fortunately the checks and balances in our government have largely contained him, preventing him from passing anything of note, even with a GOP congress.

I did find it interesting that he came out and attacked CNN International on the same day Putin went after them. Those two definitely think a lot alike.

Vindictiveness yes. Tyranny? That implies that the quotes attributed to him in news reports actually carry the weight of law. You're both giving him way too much credit, I'd say. Also, it's even a bit reassuring in a way that Trump has no brain to mouth filter. Tyranny is not served by reckless openness, but rather by secrecy.

Don't get too carried away over-interpreting the typical ridiculous Trump-related headlines, served up by a press more interested in innuendo than accurate presentations of important events. A selection from this morning, by way of example: "Donald Trump Seems to be Getting a Little Defensive About His Golfing." Let the conclusions about authoritarianism and Putin-analogies begin.

The Putin analogies are funny to me. I know, I know, he's a tyrannical autocrat who supposedly has had a bunch of people bumped off, etc., etc. But does anyone stop to think about where all of that information came from? Yeah, from the establishment media, which I for one am firmly convinced is solidly controlled by the military-industrial complex who likes nothing better than to create bogeymen, so that the US government will give them billions of more dollars, of which some small percentage of course will go back to the politicians who gave them the money in the first place.

All I'm saying is "don't believe everything you read, even if it comes from CNN or Reuters or whatever". Of course, everybody here knows that already, but I don't know, it seems like it gets forgotten amidst mushy, feel-good desires.

I think for the most part Putin wants what is best for Russia. I think for the most part Trump wants what is best for America. Those two things don't necessarily have to be at odds with each other. We really aren't that different culturally believe it or not. Of course, Putin and Trump wouldn't mind if a few extra million/billion dollars end up in their own pockets also, but that's pretty much how politics is.

Along those same lines, here is the best T-shirt I saw on a teenage girl over my vacation weekend: Dance As If Russia Wasn't Watching.

Loved it!

Here's Jeremy Scahill from The Intercept, no friend of the "establishment media," and definite a foe to the military-industrial complex, highlighting why Trump is authoritarian in nature and as good an ally to the deep state & M-I complex as anyone.

https://megaphone.link/PPY5077597385

I can see if you want a border-wall and corporate tax-rate slash that you like Trump, but the idea that he's anything but a corporatist, establishment boob is ridiculous. Fine, use him to get a tax cut or to retain more cultural hegemony in your neighborhood... but a threat to neo-liberal power structures??

So yeah, he'll reintroduce "separation of powers" as it pertains to regulating corporations (just like a good Reaganite or any conservative president would). But no way he's going to cede power away from the police state or the perma-war surveillance state. Between Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo, this should be clear. Lower taxes. Lower regulations. Permanent war with no accountability. Just an establishment conservative who can't assemble a rational thought.

stuper1 wrote:The Putin analogies are funny to me. I know, I know, he's a tyrannical autocrat who supposedly has had a bunch of people bumped off, etc., etc. But does anyone stop to think about where all of that information came from? Yeah, from the establishment media, which I for one am firmly convinced is solidly controlled by the military-industrial complex who likes nothing better than to create bogeymen, so that the US government will give them billions of more dollars, of which some small percentage of course will go back to the politicians who gave them the money in the first place.

All I'm saying is "don't believe everything you read, even if it comes from CNN or Reuters or whatever". Of course, everybody here knows that already, but I don't know, it seems like it gets forgotten amidst mushy, feel-good desires.

I think for the most part Putin wants what is best for Russia. I think for the most part Trump wants what is best for America. Those two things don't necessarily have to be at odds with each other. We really aren't that different culturally believe it or not. Of course, Putin and Trump wouldn't mind if a few extra million/billion dollars end up in their own pockets also, but that's pretty much how politics is.

Perhaps Putin IS a murderous autocrat AND the perma-war state & media are simply using this specific instance (as they have numerous times in the past) of authoritarian tendencies to build distrust of him as compared to other murderous autocrats we fully support, quietly (well, I don't consider Trump's glowing orb meeting with the Saudi's particularly "quiet" but you get my drift).

I agree that there seems to be a weird connection between the media and the perma-war surveillance state & industry, and this is something I think should be highlighted to no end, but do you really think Trump in any material way is a threat to that? To me, it's clear that he's just a fan of what he sees as a "smarter" brand of brutal imperialism. His calls for non-intervention have always been in the context that it's just dumb, rather than illegal or immoral. He's made it perfectly clear he has no qualms with bombing the sh!t out of anyone if he can see that "we" benefit from it. He has no problems with the police or spy state. None.

If you really have a concern that "the media" is an arm of the M-I complex, I really don't see how you can see Trump as anything but a cog in that machine, with "the media" happy to heir his idiocy for profit on news channels while people die, and Trump happy to distract us with Tweets while either bumbling around aimlessly while the careerists do their work or helping them do their work (depending on how intelligently/active you think he is in strategy/planning/policy).

- He's continuing support of Saudi genocide in Yemen.
- He's continuing the war in Afghanistan.
- He's got Mike Pompeo as head of the CIA.
- He's got James Mattis as head of the DoD (not a terrible pick but no anti-establishment dove)
- Our military is increasingly getting engaged in Africa in ways we don't know about
- The Saudi's, who supposedly had a lot to do with 9/11 that we were going to shine a light on, are now having glowing orb parties with Trump happy to attend.

Where's the anti-establishment candidate? Just please ignore the MSM "coverage" for a second (as I mostly do) and just look at his administration and tell me where he's anything but a bombastic-yet-establishment Republican? The only anti-establishment opinions I can see that he seems to actually hold are immigration and trade-deals.

Simonjester wrote:something is better than nothing -or- you have to start somewhere. i don't expect anybody can take on the uber deep-state (MIC) from any position of power, there just is no position strong enough to do it from, especially the presidency, so if trump ends up going along to get along and isn't true anti establishment so what? taking on the corruption and building some expectation for transparency in government is a 1000% improvement over none at all.. which is what every other candidate in the last election represented. At least it is something, and it is as good a place to start as any, especially when the difficultly of taking on the deep deep state are looked at realistically.. (in my ideal imaginary world trump or whoever would be the ultimate anti establishment candidate, take them all on, and win every battle on every front, but ideal imaginary worlds and the real world are not the same place)

What corruption is Trump unearthing? Some regulatory overreach against corporations?

If that's really where you think is anywhere near the best place to start, that's fine, but that's not anti-establishment principles, that's just Reagan-esque establishment corporatism/conservatism. Other than that, what corruption do you see him unearthing?

If, like me, you think that most of the corruption in government naturally lies where it has the most secrecy (the perma-war surveillance state), then that's where you'd put the brunt of your political capital, especially as that's arguably where the president has the most executive power. And it's clear Trump is another corporatist war-monger. Perhaps he's not materially worse than those who preceded him, but watching conservatives try to pretend he's not is almost more painful than watching Brian Williams cradle the nuts@ck of a U.S. rocket on CNN.

This isn't about taking on every battle. It's about taking on any of a select few that could earn you any legitimate praise by folks claiming to want to disassemble aspects of "the establishment" in-general or maybe some meaningful forms of corruption. Calling him a threat to the establishment because he thinks some regulations are abusing the rights of corporations isn't anti-establishment. It's a more laissez-faire wing of standard American corporatism in the same light of the establishment actor/war-monger/corporatist Ronald Reagan.

Simonjester wrote:What trump himself is doing is limited for sure, but the cultural shift towards draining the swamp is a valuable one, even if its just getting rid of a few corrupt or perverted politicians and knocking holes in the previous culture that protected all of the unworthy elite. Sure Trump isn't responsible for all of it, the people wanting it and needing it was a big chunk of what got him elected in the first place, but we have shifted from all the elite establishment being protected and invulnerable towards a new mentality where some are not, and we need to continue to do so. The perma-war surveillance state will never be taken down without a big and permanent shift toward an anti establishment outlook and you don't get the big shift until you have added together a bunch of smaller ones first. so yes trump could burn up political capital pushing hard against the perma-war surveillance state first and foremost, but he would not be likely to get anywhere with the entirety of the corrupt elite establishment against him.. you can't topple the wall by pushing against its strongest point at a time when its at its most invulnerable, but you can by knocking out the keystones that make it strong..

----disclaimer---- trump may or may not even be the guy that wants to take on the deep establishment! he could be one of them.. but he has become Representative of the drain the swamp transparency movement either way--

(not to mention the risk of assassination that any blunt attack against a full strength establishment willing and able to cover up anything represents)

Ok so assuming we buy the "can't mess with the perma-war state lest you get executed" argument, we are still left with the rest. Even though I think absent fully reforming our war-state he could have done smaller reforms to end the Yemen slaughter and Afghan war without getting assassinated. Are we just going to give him a pass on that?

What few areas do you specifically think he's done the most to uproot corruption in government? When I look at his cabinet, which are decided where he has the most initial direct influence, I see a hotbed of republican-establishment police-statism, imperialism and corporatism. Not reform.

I think you're really reaching to give Trump anti-establishment bonafides that he doesn't really have.

Simonjester wrote: i don't think he has bonafides as much as he has made himself a symbol of change, ...could he do more sure!... he could chip harder at the edges of the war state, he could have picked a few less establishment cabinet members.. there are things he could do that would make the case for bonafide reformer over symbol of reform, but i am not convinced that a "beat them at there own game, straight forward approach", can ever work against the establishment, just for the shear fact that it is their game and they are the ones who established it.
So trump is not anti establishment inside the game and yet he seems to be waging an asymmetrical war against it at the same time? will there be real or meaningful changes due to it? i would guess probably not in any immediately recognizable form, what i find interesting is this is the first time in my life that it feels like the winds have maybe shifted, that maybe i am seeing something new.. how will it play out? i have no idea. I am a perma-sceptic it could just be a whole lot more of nothing hot air to get votes for the, same old..same old, "promise of change", just like the left and right have been playing us with for as long as i have watched politics..

It seems fanciful to me to think that any modern president has any control whatsoever over the multinational corporate regime which has directed U.S. foreign policy for the last several decades. I agree that the only unique or meaningful thing about the Trump presidency is that it has galvanized an anti-establishment base that, one small step at a time, is pulling back the curtain.

The thing that really boggles my mind is why the Progressive Left continues to pour all its energy into deriding Trump, while siding with, and allowing itself to be used by, the corporate establishment to further its totalitarian agenda.

Anybody have any thoughts on the possible shakeup removing Tillerson (perhaps more accurate to say he's quitting), but putting Pompeo as SoS and Tom Cotton as CIA head?