The Trump Presidency

#terrifiedincoherence | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Spectacular quotes are as spectacular quotes will, so, you know, whatever, but ...: Tony Scwhartz, co-author of The Art of the Deal, suggests President Trump will resign before the end of his term:

In an interview with CNN, Tony Schwartz said that Trump is in "pure terror" that the scandals surrounding his administration could boil over to impeachment, and will likely walk away.

“There is no right and wrong for Trump. There’s winning and losing. And that’s very different from right and wrong. Right now he’s in pure terror that he is going to lose," Schwartz said.

"And by the way, he is going to lose.”

Schwartz predicted that Trump will seek a way to turn resignation into victory.

“He wants to figure out a way — as he’s done all his career — to turn a loss into a victory,” the author said. "And so he will declare victory when he leaves.”

(Bowden↱)​

And, you know, what? The idea of Donald Trump in pure terror? Yeah, that's a quote worth sharing.

In that context, I think of former CIA Director Brennan sketching a sympathetic narrative to describe the acquisition of an unwitting asset. And I think of that weird bit, earlier this month↑, when it was like someone took President Trump aside, talked to him about NAFTA in terms he could understand, and suddenly he had a clue what he was about to do and what kind of a headache that could cause him. And at some point, I think President Trump has some basic sketch of approximately how much trouble he is in, and it may well be that simply not losing is the best he can hope for.

We'll have to see what comes.
____________________

Notes:

Bowden, John. "'Art of the Deal' co-writer: Trump will resign so he doesn't 'lose'". The Hill. 19 May 2017. TheHill.com. 23 May 2017. http://bit.ly/2q8Dnva

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm still worried that he's going to win.

Because after these public violations all he has to do to win is survive - still be President three and a half years from now. If he can violate all these norms, and act as he has, without being removed from office, he will own the place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes I agree... he is still in office and retaining his support even though he is obviously unfit.. means he will be re-elected, no matter what he does or says.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

#resist​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click for a gray endlessly close to black.​

So if you had cause to be wandering through, say, Moonbat Six, what's the chatter in Emmer's Quarter?

I don't worry about 2020 until I have a better read on the midterm. Politicians will posture as politicians do, but at some point we must start figuring certain voters.

In my corner, can Democrats dislodge West Idaho the Eastern Bloc Washington Five?

Can the former chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation win an election against a white Christian in eastern Washington state?

There were several numbers that just shouldn't have been as high as they were: Three-quarters of South Carolina Republicans? Five percent of Marco Rubio's support in the Palmetto State? A third of Americans? Say what anyone will about Hillary Clinton; those aren't the numbers on misogyny.

It really does feel like we're in the early stages of an American reckoning; at the moment I have precisely no hopeful glimmers to offer toward 2018 or 2020. It's what bothers me so much about appeasement: I see the tactical justification, but the strategic projection is bullshit. Appeasement is a question of surrender—or triumph, I suppose, if we depending on factional alignment—and, furthermore, it would be hard enough to justify the human sacrifice even if I was more optimistic.

Those numbers are really important. I believe in the bloodless revolution, but that functionally depends on presuming there is, in fact, a bloodless pathway.

Our societal demand for civility rests on the prospect that civilization is possible. At what point does who concede it is impossible without first settling certain existential challenges apparently resulting of will? And whose determination that it should be so is sufficient to require their fellows should likewise answer?

In the end, the supremacists, finding society no longer accommodates their particular injustice as default justice, would rather call off civilization altogether; the prospect of equality is just that terrifying.

Episode eight ("円環", "Enkan", "Circular") of the Tokyo Ghoul television series includes the naked assertion of a right to live, juxtaposed in competition with human rights and predation. It makes an interesting point, especially as we are accustomed to a more vampiric hubris, in which the right to feed is not pled from desperate oppression but, rather, declared as a spoil of superiority.

Toward that end, I suppose I think of this because the ghouls of this lore, at least, have conscience enough to reckon with their own predatory need. That is to say, unlike conservatives, at least the ghouls are capable of recognizing the humanity of their prey; they understand that civilized society is a real thing.

 

Ignoring cheap personal attacks of various participants, I have found something worth to answer:

There are good reasons for a commodity-backed currency. The purely pragmatic one that you will have, in the average, zero inflation, and so long term contracts become much more secure, with much less need to renegotiate them every year or so because of inflation. A commodity-backed currency does in no way mean that you have to ship that commodity around a lot. And the people would not lose from their savings in currency because of inflation. So, the people would like it. The governments would not like it, because inflation is income for the state.

There have been, in the past. A single currency instead of bartering means you need much less exchanges. In the classical world, every exchange needs time and causes costs.

But modern electronic banking reduces these costs. An electronic bank could offer payments in any currency to its customers, with each customer deciding himself in which currency to store the cash, and automatic exchange for every transfer with minimal or no fee. This is, of course, nothing the states like to offer the people - they prefer to force their citizens to hold only their own currency, because this allows them to extract inflation tax. But this is nothing which can be preserved for long. In an internet-connected multi-polar world, it becomes difficult to impossible to prevent states from offering accounts to foreigners, and to offer, then, such fast and cheap exchange services to all their customers. In fact, you can have all this already today, but it is simply uncomfortable yet.

Cooperation is unproblematic, except if states want to make it problematic. As they usually want (to protect their own big firms from competition). So, collaboration and cooperation is not a sufficient justification for a world government. Instead, many states are much better to protect free collaboration and cooperation, because if one state becomes rogue, all the internet activities can easily migrate to civilized locations, and the real things will follow. But if the world government goes rogue, the world becomes a hell.

No, such notions are obvious examples of wishful thinking that Big Government, in this case the Unipolar Regulatory Instance or so, will do good things, instead of supporting the superior state, and minimizing competition for resources by owning them alone.

It included claims about facts - namely who lies - which I tried to avoid. Again, my point is a technical one, if you want to avoid distortions by a hostile press, use ways to communicate which cannot be distorted by the press, because they are accessible to everybody.

To do so, you have to be a strong enough player to set basic conditions (like to make sure that the whole interview is send, without cuts). And you have to be a media professional yourself. Above conditions are fulfilled, so that it makes sense to do so. But I see, my text was easy to misinterpret as a claim that Trump did not give interviews. This was not the intention. My point was different: to describe a general strategy how to handle hostile media. For average people, to give interviews to hostile media is the most stupid thing they can do.

I don't have to explain things which imho are only your fantasy. You had the chance, and given your 63% pro-Trump NYT source, I have tested it, and have found at a randomly chosen day 87% anti-Trump in NYT. You think I have to care after this about your fantasies?

By the way, you continue to mingle real support - writing pro-Trump - and large media coverage, which can contain a lot of anti-Trump writing. I know very well that in such cases even negative reports are better than no reports, at least to some degree. But this effect matters if you are one of ten or so candidates - there the candidate without media coverage at all is out. But this plays no role in the final round. So, what I concede that writing a lot of bad things about Trump in the primaries has helped him, against candidates nobody with no media coverage. But in the final round, this is no longer what matters.

In the final round, the already quite common distrust in the mainstream media starts to matter - the number of people who elect the candidate most hated by the mainstream media is increasing. But this is yet another problem.

YMMD. Mainstream media connected in a single sentence with "basic terms of integrity or honest journalism", LOL.

 

And you believe that allowing nations to compete without agreed global regulation would lead to a better result? Bah!

 

Even without world government, there have been found established rules of behavior, named international law. Quite old rules, btw.

 

And how is this international law to be enforced? The world is already dysfunctionally multipolar. The world has been evolving to a unipolar system since the birth of the UN. (Then the EU) It's ability to be a genuine democratic unipolar system is inhibited due to the extreme imbalances of power in what is still essentially a multi polar world playing lip service only to their declared unipolar ambitions. And you and Putin are wanting more of the same claiming it to be somehow different. It's not.

Trump's primary agenda is to reinforce a multi polar world with the USA maintaining it's global dominance.

 

Ya' know... I'm just exhausted by the whole thing. All I can manage tonight is a mewling "fuck him."

However, a vengeance rides on the morrow... (or the next)

 

The Democrats are about to kick your ass in a wave election with no precedent. Get your fingers ready 'cause there's no way to plug this dyke big guy...

It is a feat unto itself to rile peaceable folk up the way the current climate has - but when you do, watch out. As in, "duck." You, and your ilk - dear wellwisher - are going down so hard and so far it ain't even funny. Remember, you heard it here first - it's all over for the scumbags - come back and tell me it ain't so in 2020. In fact, check back in 2018 with a status update...

 

If it goes that far he will have a new opponent and no guarantee that he will prevail.

If the Dems win the next elections and control Congress it will be a new ball game. If not then the world may have to count the USA a lost cause.

Then there is the march of time and events. The world is changing so fast that the Trump phenomenon may simply lose any relevance it apparently had in a few short years.

On the other hand the lack of bipartisanship in American politics will have to be addresses irrespective of Trump or else there may be worse to follow (worse than Trump).

EDIT: hopefully not worse than this
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40026413

 

By reputation.

I agree that the UN was an attempt toward a world government, but it failed. First because of the Cold War, then because of the US openly violating international law. So, the UN is essentially dead, not more than a propaganda forum. The world has to recover a multipolar order, where states which violate it will face a natural penalty - nobody trusts them, and all other prefer to cooperate with the other, law-abiding states. This is a world order where every state has this option - even a small one, because it can ask one of the other power centers for protection if one power center violates international law.

To create such an order where small states have a chance not to submit to the US is one of the aims of the Russian involvement in Syria. The US has played foul, supporting terrorists in violation of all international law. Now Syria gets protection from Russia against those US-paid terrorists. With similar techniques, the actual world will be transformed during the next years or decades into one without the option for the US to cause regime change by paying terrorists.

If you see no difference between a world where every state has to submit to any US wish, because else it will be faced with color revolution, foreign-paid terrorism, or open US aggression (the world 20 years ago), and a world where the sovereignty of other states is observed even by the US (the world in 20 years or so), ok, but I see a big difference. You may even see a difference but prefer the former. I prefer the latter. I name the first one unipolar, the second multipolar.

Agreement. And the US has a good chance to remain a globally dominant player - but not unrestricted as before, or even now.

 

You do realize that's what we have always had, right? For thousands of years, leading to WWII?
Your "reputation" is a function of history - and the thugs have always had the answer to that: the winner dictates the history.

Nonsense. History is full of episodes of inflation, recession, and disaster under commodity backed currencies.
The basic fact is that money is an abstraction: all currencies get their value by fiat.

By an accident of history, the US became for a brief period after WWII and again after the Soviet Union fell apart the only or almost only power doing those bad things. That was a golden opportunity for the US, in its idealistic manifestation, which it ruined just as you described. But returning to the former condition, in which several powers are doing those bad things, only this time around with nuclear weapons on the table, is worse.

What you had was a chance to tame the US - make it a symbolic unipole. Like getting civilian control of a police force, or imposing a Constitution on a monarchy. Instead, you back the criminal gangs - the Putins and other Godfathers - who can get you lawlessness, which you mistake for freedom.

 

I've always thought the relationship between Trump and his wife Melania was an odd one. She lives in New York and he lives in Washington DC. And Trump's recent trip has done nothing but reaffirm that belief. Melania has repeatedly refused to hold her husband's hand. Is there a divorce in the offing?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...away-donald-trumps-hand-upon-arriving-israel/

 

Explosive Betrayal

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

In truth, Joe, today I'm much more concerned with ... er ... ah ... well:

Mr. Trump seemed to try to reassure Mr. Duterte. Mr. Kim, he said, “has got the powder, but he doesn’t have the delivery system — all his rockets are crashing.” The president said nothing of the American-led program to sabotage the launches, though in some tests both before and after the call, the North has conducted several successful launches.

“We have a lot of firepower over there,” Mr. Trump noted. “We have two submarines — the best in the world. We have two nuclear submarines, not that we want to use them at all.”

(Sanger and Haberman↱)​

Any other president would have made headlines for attacking his predecessor while overseas, as President Trump did. That is to say, any other president would not have thought to boast about the location of his nuclear submarines. Or maybe my formulation is awry; it seems doubtful ohter presidents would have made headlines for attacking their predecessors as such because they were sufficiently intelligent and decent alike to avoid such basic indignities.

Even as such, the President of the United States wishes to make himself dangerous to his own armed services, and this is simply untenable.
____________________

Notes:

Sanger, David E. and Maggie Haberman. "Trump Praises Duterte for Philippine Drug Crackdown in Call Transcript". The New York Times. 23 May 2017. NYTimes.com. 24 May 2017. http://nyti.ms/2rAjh0S

 

You were, and are, wrong. In error. And you have been shown how and why, in clear and simple language - this refusal to learn you exhibit here is willful.

You didn't test the media involved, from which Trump received his major support. I pointed you directly to it, named it, and linked to it - and you ignored it. You even described your chosen source media - a single issue of the New York Times - as my choice instead of yours. Why?

You didn't test for the most important type of support Trump received. I described it, you ignored it.

Your test of your chosen media was silly - you didn't even include a Clinton comparison, a major feature, and you refused to consider context (granted, you didn't have any idea what it was, but that ignorance was something you needed to take into account).

Your statistical reasoning was goofy - you extrapolated from a sample of one day to an entire campaign season. That doesn't even work for the NYT, let alone Trump's media support.

You lack the capability to test as you claimed to have tested, yourself. As pointed out to you, you are incapable of determining whether a given article in a US paper is "positive" or "negative" with regard to Trump, because you have no familiarity with the US context. I illustrated your problem there with a little story about LBJ deliberately creating bad press for himself, media that looked "negative" to the naive.

Avoiding facts but including mindreading is what you did. That was a mistake, and you posted falsehood in consequence.

Your point was that Trump used Twitter to avoid journalists distorting what they reported from interviews. You were wrong about that. Trump used Twitter to get lies promulgated on the major media, past the editorial filters. He created distortion via Twitter - the opposite of avoiding it.

So you weren't talking about Trump? Because none of that applies to Trump. Trump was not dealing with a hostile press, but a press that was falling all over itself to accommodate him. He didn't have to set conditions - they were arranged in his favor by CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and every other major media he employed to communicate with his voting base.

And so forth.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/24/news/economy/donald-trump-voters-budget-cuts/

a swash of some of his voting base, so overwhelmingly driven by hate/prejudice as in anti-anythng non-white that they ignorantly vote against themselves. well, they got what they deserve.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334949-sanders-trump-budget-is-grotesquely-immoral

is anyone really surprised at his audaciousness? this man who is totally elitist and has never had to suffer, stolen or be oppressed of anything in his life?

 

yes.. I wonder what wellwisher would write to them when they can't put food on the table....in what way will he justify his hero's actions? perhaps "for the good of the nation betrayal is necessary" will be his cry...

 

#failure | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Donald Trump's failed Carrier jobs pledge is hardly the worst of broken promises, but there are a couple notes worth noting about the updated copy—("This story has been updated to include Carrier's response")—from Wonkblog↱:

Chuck Jones, president of the United Steelworkers Local 1999, which represents Carrier employees in Indianapolis, provided further evidence that Trump had inflated the number of jobs that would remain in Indianapolis. Only 800 Carrier employees would be able to keep their jobs—770 factory workers plus 30 or so more employees, counting supervisors, according to the union count.

Jones told The Washington Post days later that Trump had "lied his a-- off." He suspected the then-president-elect was including in his count design and engineering jobs that were never going to leave. Trump responded on Twitter by saying Jones had done a "terrible job" as union president.

The full extent of the layoffs emerged Monday with Carrier's announcement of 632 job losses.

The company told The Post on Thursday that "more than 1,000 jobs" will be preserved. However that figure included engineering and headquarters staff whose jobs were never scheduled to leave Indianapolis in the first place.​

Turns out the union man was right: Donald Trump was lying. Gotta love how that update worked out.

Show of hands: Who's surprised?

Something goes here about #WhatTheyVotedFor, especially those Rust Belt working-class votes.
____________________

Notes:

Paquette, Danelle. "Trump said he would save jobs at Carrier. The layoffs start July 20." Wonkblog. 24 May 2017. WashingtonPost.com. 24 May 2017. http://wapo.st/2qm8WRw

 

even the constant rise in inflation is stupid. every fiscal year you have those who have something to gain/sell raising prices (arbitrarily, guesstimating, eenie meenie minie moe stuff) with an assumption that everyone else will be paid more and that is not the case. they need to control inflation just like they need to do with revenue, not just spending.
there are certain sectors to continually like clockwork to increase inflation and that is real estate, cars, food, restaurants etc