Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.
And celebrities don't represent the people, so there is no conflict of interest.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Pence lawyered up too. At least Pence hired a criminal attorney. I wasn't expecting that. Perhaps Pence has some culpability here too. Ryan could be our next POTUS. I didn't see that one coming.
Kushner may follow his father's footsteps into a federal jail cell. We could have Trump, Pence, and Kushner all sitting in a jail cell together.
Perhaps he is preparing to defend charges of colluding with Trump, RE: Russian collision etc. Protecting himself from the potential collateral fall out.
As if the repetition would show anything more than your inability to see the differences. Or is it your aim which prevents you to see the differences? Of course, if one aims to defame, accuracy does not really matter.
But maybe the problem is simply the different position, the different point of view. You are an active participant in the battle against Trump. For me, Trump is a laughable figure who has somehow managed to confound the plans of the main faction of the deep state, and now the deep state has to correct this, and by the way has to present its ability to do this. And I have prepared a lot of popcorn (only metaphorically, in reality I do not use such American ....) to digest how the deep state acts.
And these actions I evaluate from a simple pragmatic point of view: Is there any theoretical chance for a president elected against the will of the deep state to survive? Of course, the experiment is nothing but pure, we have, on the one hand, a main figure who has, quite obviously, a large amount of weak points to attack, so that if he fails, one can explain this by his personal problems, instead of the deep state ability to remove everybody who confounds. On the other hand, Trump has the support of some faction of the deep state, and, given that from the outside it is impossible to find out the details of the hidden infight, it is clear that we do not have the case of deep state 100% against Trump. So, if Trump survives, it may not be a proof that the deep state itself is to weak against democracy and the will of the people, but only that the pro-Trump faction is greater than it looks.
But the point is that I do not have to look at the final result. I look at the methods of fighting Trump. These methods would be used in any repetition, they would be used also, say, in the ideal case of a faultless hero of the people elected and having to fight the deep state 100%.
(This is, btw, close to what I have done in the denial thread about your methods. From your point of view, I have tried to defend myself against your "truth" or so. But this was not really the aim. I have found out a lot about your methods of attack. Not that the methods themselves were really new to me. What was new was how consistently you apply them, how you are supported by the one-line-respondents, and that you did not stop to use these methods even if confronted with arguments against them. This is also interesting news, because it is possible only in a society which is already very ideological, and close to a totalitarian one.
For starters, if the police is interested to catch you, and you live in a quasi-totalitarian police state, they will catch you. Your only hope is some strong enough support among those in power.
We have discussed that general problem (it is not about Trump at all) in the past, using the example of cp laws. Where you have defended the thesis that people could easily defend themselves against fake cp put on their computer by the police itself. An imho quite funny idea, given that one has, before one starts any defense in court, to accept the high risk idea not to accept a plea bargain deal, which sends you to prison only for a few years for having owned some pictures, and given that the "fact" that cp has been found, together with a highly emotionalized jury makes a jury trial extremely risky. But, whatever, this was only an example of the dangers you face living in the state with the highest incarceration rates of the whole world.
In the case of the Trump administration, it is clear now that becoming part of it is a high risk decision. You will be thoroughly investigated by the NSA and the CIA, not as part of some standard security check, but as against a known enemy where they want to find something to kill you. Whatever will be found that can be used against you will be leaked to the media, which start a smear campaign against you. And whatever they find what could be used to imprison you will be used in this way. The scheme is that same, illegal surveillance finds something, a "leak" distributes this in the media, and based on the media reports already an official investigation can be started. Then, the main part of the investigation is to force you somehow to answer questions under oath, which is not done to find out some truth (nobody cares about truth in such cases) but to find some minor contradiction. Which is, then, already criminal in itself.
It's a little strange that you would on one hand suggest the ease of which fake cp could be planted if law enforcement wished to and then fail to extend such an extreme to the FBI NSA or CIA.
Don't you think they are capable of installing fake cp on Trump or any one in 'Trumps administration or congress?
If yes then why haven't they? (Also, surely the deep state being as divided as you suggest implies no deep state at all...)
so why haven't they done as you think they would do?
Are they waiting for Putin to given them the security credo's or what?
That they can do some things does not mean that they have to do it now. That the deep state is ready to use sexual accusations is nothing I would doubt after Strauss-Kahn and Assange.
Then, why you think the deep state should be somehow unified? All what matters to have a deep state is that the real political decisions are not made by those officially obliged to make them, but behind the doors by some others, those with real power. That means, a difference between real power and formal (democratically legitimated) power. There is nothing which requires that the deep state, the real power centers, are somehow without any internal conflicts.
The deep state is not in charge. Rather the deep state has enough influence and impact to do the work of the Russians, which is to disrupt the normal processes of the US government. They will generate misinformation, saying the legitimate and elected government is the traitor. They are quite predictable, because they are spoil children who are not very bright. This all comes back to career politicians, who had images of grandeur, but whose fantasy has been disrupted by the reality of an unpredicted event, which is the election of Trump.
Trump has promised to reduce the size of the government, which means decreasing the power of the career bureaucrats. Their power is based on the amount of manpower and resources they control. If either or both get smaller, they lose power. Their power has little to do with ability and service, which could still be maximized with less. However, they would need to be more than criminals and morons.
Someone who has spent a career climbing the ladder of boot licking, will not wish to get knocked down rungs. They will try to sabotage, so nothing can change. These people are part of the swamp, which rips off the tax payer. Even now the tax payer is paying and nothing is getting done beyond the dark state serving itself.
Oh I think I understand your point... but...
Do you understand mine?
If a so called deep state exists as you suggest then what we would see today in governments all around the world is something very different to what we actually see.
Do you seriously suggest that a group of organized wealthy individuals would restrain themselves and not be in control as you believe they can be?
All I see is typical power influences being applied in an ad-hoc typically corrupt fashion. No deep state per-see...just good ole fashion money talks type corruption every now and then.. (human nature 101) No insidious deep state as such.
Sure you have your elite that swing hard when they feel they need to but is this more the criminal privilege of extreme wealth than any devious ongoing intent to maintain corruption at the levels you imply?
Trump himself would qualify as a member of such a group simply because he has access to wealth ( not necessarily wealthy as himself) yet no way could Trump be such due to his obvious management and secret keeping limitations.
Here in Australia we have a current situation where extremely wealthy Chinese are attempting to influence political decisions by throwing huge money around. This is normal business for them but outrageous to us... are they part of a deep state by your reckoning?
Accepting large bribes is relatively easy for law enforcement to track. Even planting cp on pc's is not that hard to track given all the meta data stored.
The evidence simply isn't there to support the notion of a malignant deep state however there is ample evidence of occasional corruption and criminal activities generally.
Except perhaps, in nations where the judiciary is not distant enough from the government and lacks independence. Such as China, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, Romania, and quite a few other ...uhmm...not so advanced political systems..
everything the Republicans apparently were doing to Obama and Hillary... yes?
Some deep state hey?
Deep state talk is really paranoid BS...linked to Prior Sion BS linked to Illuminati BS linked to ET Lizard BS, Greys BS and other more exotic conspiracy theorist BS.
You know, most people regardless of wealth are pretty decent folk...most of the time but not all of the time...
It wont take a deep state to remove Trump from office.. he is doing a really fine job of it all by himself...
But it might take a organized (so called deep state) support to keep him in office when he really needs to go...
The “deep state” is our separation of powers. It isn’t a single entity. It’s the structure which thwarts dictators and would be dictators. For most of us, that’s a good thing comrade.
Trump has promised many things. He has delivered on few if any of his promises, nor will he. Government bureaucrats are like private industry bureaucrats. Bureaucracies exist for good reasons. They exist to deliver a product or service efficiently and effectively. Thus far Trump has done nothing to improve government. He has attacked our key democratic institutions and attempted to politicize our judicial system and national security. Those are direct threats to our democracy.
This has nothing to do with imaginary boot-lickers. This has everything to do with defending our democracy. Trump has no plans for draining the “swamp”, not a single one. Contrary to your assertion a lot is getting done each and every day. What isn’t getting done is Trump’s political agenda, and that has nothing to do with a fictional “deep state”. It has everything to do with Trump’s incompetence and inability to lead.
The "deep state" is ready to use sexual accusations? Where does that come from comrade?
The US is not like your beloved Mother Russia and you are wrong to equate the two. The US has a diverse political base. The POTUS isn't a dictator. The truth isn't a problem for the free state. It's a problem for dictators and would be dictators.
Sexual accusations are the least of Trump's problems. We've already listened to Trump's sex tapes. Putin's man "The Donald" has problems much bigger than "sexual accusation". He's got criminal problems that could cost him not only his job, but his money, and his freedom.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Er ... ah ... okay, then:
An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general's sworn testimony given this week.
Sessions testified under oath on Tuesday that he did not believe he had any contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests over the course of Trump's campaign. But Richard Burt, a former ambassador to Germany during the Reagan administration, who has represented Russian interests in Washington, told the Guardian that he could confirm previous media reports that stated he had contacts with Sessions at the time.
"I did attend two dinners with groups of former Republican foreign policy officials and Senator Sessions," Burt said.
Asked whether Sessions was unfamiliar with Burt's role as a lobbyist for Russian interests – a fact that is disclosed in public records – or had any reason to be confused about the issue, Burt told the Guardian that he did not know.
What do they need us to believe?
Oh, right. He forgot.
The gentleman seems to rather quite forgetful, these days.
Kirchgaessner, Stephane. "Lobbyist for Russian interests says he attended dinners hosted by Sessions". The Guardian. 15 June 2017. TheGuardian.com. 16 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2sC6DiW
I just realized after reading your posts that we may have differing definitions of "deep state".
Certainly the Deep state that wellwisher and schmelzer are referring to is very different to the one you are referring to. ( as far as I can discern)
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"
He believes this yet isn't the reason more about how he attempted to put pressure on Comey to drop the Flynn investigation?
If it isn't, you have at least two Deep States.
Possibly more. You have described I believe three mutually conflicting sets of interests as "the Deep State" of the US - and that's on top of referring to Clinton and Obama, who are elected officials, as belonging to each one.
Which explains why you must deny the otherwise fairly obvious fact that electing different people changes those decisions, sometimes dramatically (Iraq War via W&Cheney, Obamacare repeal via Trump, say).
As mentioned, from the Strauss-Kahn and Assange cases.
Then, learn to read. I have answered a question why the deep state does not use implanting cp against its enemies. My answer is not at all in contradiction to your hypothesis that the deep state has anyway enough to impeach Trump.
Why this? If a state is not really unified, with parties fighting each other, they are already two states? Ok, in a formal state, there is usual some law which clarifies who has power. But even in formal states there are different parts, which may, at the same time, ruled by different factions of the legal establishment. A deep state is, by definition, less formal, and so there is also no clear hierarchy, and
Of course, I do not support the extreme view that those with legal power are only puppets without any real power. They have also some real power. How much, is hard to evaluate from the outside. But if they would not have any real power, there would be no fight against Trump, but Trump would simply do what he is told by the puppet masters. But the fight against Trump will illustrate the real power behind the POTUS.
The wars against various secular Arabic regimes, and the use of jihadi terrorism for this purpose, are supported by above Parties. Yes, there are differences, but in degree and methods, not in the main aims. Same for Obamacare. If Republicans would be really against it, it would have been already replaced by some completely different Trumpcare, or no government care at all. Above want big government in Medicine, even if Republicans claim otherwise in propaganda. Where you see dramatic differences is beyond me.
Separate names with a comma.