MIGA stage of Trump political career: the art of betrayal of his election promises (April 2017 -- March 2019)
Will the neocon baggage, "Make Israel Great Again" (MIGA) policies, Venezuela color revolution, and complete betrayal of his voters
Trump looks like Republican Obama, another master of "bait and switch" maneuver. Obama won his reelection bid. Can
Trump repeat the trick ?
In 2016 Trump promised to drain the swamp. He drained a small patch of neocon swamp and put all those bottomfeeders from this
patch in his cabinet.
Trumps come and go, but the deluded, totally brainwashed electorate will stay. That's the real problem. Degradation of democracy
into oligarchy (the iron law of oligarchy) is an objective process. In 2016 we saw some kind revolt against status quo. That's
why Trump and Sanders get so many supporters. It ended with nothing.
Donald Trump probably broke the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history including previous
champion -- Obama.
The Imperial Presidency of the United States has evolved over the last century to the point that the executive holds certain powers
that can be considered dictatorial. Arguably, due to imperial transformation of the USA after 1991 (the collapse of the USSR) the area
in which the President is almost totally uncontrolled is in waging wars. The Constitution specifically reserves this right for Congress.
Trump betrayed everything and everybody, but he remain the sign of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. The USA looks and
sounds like a person with dementia – as if a sick person behaving inappropriately, showing unprovoked aggression (like some Alzheimer
patients), using silly or senseless phrasing, and having the unreasonable demands and uncontrolled fits of rage like a spoiled child.
Add to this Pelosi, and hysterical Max Boot, the openly lying Clapper and the hate-filled profiteer Brennan.
Let me be clear: in the last 24 years the DC political class has gone almost entirely criminal, with the last 13 years dedicated
to serial war crimes. In this sort of situation the DoJ, AG, and FBI head, becomes corrupted, and turns away from the rule of law to
become a shield for the DC criminal despotism.
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves
for all the world to see.
Trump proved to be a sad joke of a anti-neoliberal, anti-war crusader. As for his anti-globalization stance, it looks like
he prefers the direct economic racket to treaties. but still wants to sustain and expand the US neoliberal empire, no matter what
are the costs for the US people. Venezuela is a good example here. US relations with Russia, which Trump
promised to improve, have chilled to Cold War status and policies toward Russia of Trump administration does not differ from the policies
of Obama administration. That increases chances of WWIII, which might mean that perishing of the human civilization, as we know
it (Khrushchev's bon mot about the US nuclear superiority still apples, He said something like that: "Yes, the USA is much stronger,
we just have the capability to destroy the USA one time, while they have the capability to destroy the USSR many times"). This
saying is fully applicable to the idiotism of Trump "supersized" military budget. And the U.S. national debt is now larger than
the US economy. This is imperial overstretch. It is unsustainable.
His "Draining the swamp" slogan in reality turned to be as phony as "change we can believe is. " he proved to be another Bush
II, uneducated, inarticulate, and incompetent President fully controlled by neocon lobby (which in its immense gratitude for services
he provided wants to depose him and organized Mueller witch hunt). Add to this his impulsivity and narcissistic desire to be in the
spotlight and you get a really toxic brew. The number of neocons in Trump administration is comparable with the number of neocons in
Bush II and Obama administrations.
Trump allowed to Washington foreign policy elite to conduct his foreign
policy. The latter is arrogant (just look at Pompeo and Bolton), out of touch with reality and still stuck in the 1990s. They believed
in American exceptionalism and that the U.S. had an almost divine right to run the world. American power supposedly rivaled imperial
Rome. Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump all shared similar foreign policy objectives. Fierst of all they wanted to to spread the
US-style neoliberalism. Even if this can be accomplished on the tips of bayonets. Any dissenters are branded as authoritarian
dictators, sanctioned and for non-nuclear players threatened with force. The Washington elite believes it is America’s destiny
to lead the world forever, despite their own level of degeneration. Government officials and media commentators who have promoted
disastrous wars suffer no consequences and are welcomed back into circles of power.The cost of imperial wars since dissolution of the
USSR runs at around 6 trillion. It is now clear that that large part of the defense budget would be better spent at home, upgrading
the country's infrastructure.
Trump proved to be completely different politician then he was pretending to be during 2016 election. In this sense he competes
with Obama for the title of Grandmaster of "bait and switch" game.
His main accomplishment was "Trump tax cut for the rich". Similar to Bush II cut. In this sense he performed a deft "bait and switch"
maneuver similar to one done by Obama and can be called "Republican Obama." Another classic turncoat US politician, who betrayed his
voters three months after the elections.
Despite his campaign rhetoric (“our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster”; “we’re rebuilding other countries while weakening
our own”), Trump used the playbook of the neocon foreign-policy. Even some members of establishment started to realise this (better
late, then never ;-). See for example Stephen Walt’s The Hell of Good Intentions.Here
is one Amazon comment
This is a well written, well researched, and well reasoned criticism of Liberal Hegemony (“LH”). LH rests on the belief that the
United States is uniquely positioned to spread democracy and shape the international system to promote international peace and
prosperity. LH has led to the invasion of Iraq, military efforts in Afghanistan, and counterterrorism operations in Somalia, Yemen,
Libya and Syria. The results, according to Walt, are not favorable:
Our military operations have been costly in both dollars and lives but have had scant success;
The number of violent extremists and the number of places where they are active is greater now then when Al Qaeda first
emerged;
Our military efforts have created resentment because of civilian casualties;
Our foreign activities have taken time, attention and resources away from pressing domestic concerns; and
Efforts to promote democracy and human rights have gone into reverse with a decline in many countries of political rights
and civil liberties.
In spite of this, LH continues to be advocated almost universally in the media and by political and foreign policy commentators.
People who criticize its exercise are ostracized. Nevertheless, Walt names proponent’s names and few well known political and
military spokesmen are spared.
Walt reviews Trump’s foreign policy and military efforts and concludes he has made matters worse.
Walt presents a very persuasive alternative strategy that he calls Offshore Balancing. It would entail a continued strong military
but much less active military involvement in other countries and more use of diplomacy. This is truly a book well worth reading.
Trump as serial Betrayer not that different from Obama
Again, the essential of Trump is "serial betrayer" which is as bad as "serial killer": in 2018 Trump positioned himself as
anti-war, anti-establishment candidate and some of his points resonated strong with the the US population. He betrayed all of
them. This posture was fake, and now he can't repeat this trick. He is not the establishment. All those votes IMHO
are not going to Tulsi, not Trump, if Tulsi runs against him.
The main issue in this election is that the Neoliberal Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense
of "Coke Pepsi" two party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory details
of their corruption and malfeasance. But they will fight furiously and will try to accomplish with Tulsi the same dirty trick as they
accomplished with Sanders in 2016.
Ironically, the entire contention that Trump pursued an appeasement policy toward Putin was
the opposite of reality. Washington's policy toward Moscow
actually hardened in multiple ways during the Trump years. Numerous measures, including
repeated U.S. arms sales to Ukraine, continued expansion of NATO's membership, an increase in
both the number and size of NATO war games near Russia's borders, U.S. withdrawal from the INF
treaty, and Washington's efforts to unseat Russian client regimes in Syria and Venezuela,
confirmed that point. Some would argue that he did this all under pressure from Congress,
nevertheless, the mythology that Trump spent four years cozying-up to a murderous aggressor now
has a tenacious hold on the collective American psyche.
Many nationalists plan to vote for Trump, not due to a positive assessment of his first
term, but for the same reason people line up for terrible movie sequels: warm and fuzzy
nostalgia, sometimes inexplicable. Once upon a time the prospect of electing this man made the
people we all hate but who rule us anyway visibly afraid.
Spite for the "coastal elites" in tortoiseshell glasses will likely save the day.
But don't expect the same flood of libtard tears this time around outside of maybe low level
MSNBC watchers. The real elite, the Jews, now realize that Trump's gun had an orange tip spray
painted black the whole time.
Trump began betraying his voters almost as soon as he was sworn into office. The only
figures in Trump's populist campaign who survived the 2016 election were Steve Bannon, who was
banished after Charlottesville and is now facing federal charges at the hands of Trump's own
Department of Justice, and Jeff Sessions, whose political career was destroyed by Trump's
calculated malice.
A victory in 2016 by any of the generic GOP hacks who lost during the primary would've been
indistinguishable from the last four years of Trump, policy-wise.
Draining the swamp and transforming the Republicans into a worker's party? No. Instead, his
cabinet positions
were staffed by the swamp scum at the Heritage Foundation.
Deportation force and a wall? He trots out Stephen Miller
before any big vote , but nothing was accomplished on this front. Barack Obama removed
50% more
illegal aliens in his first term than Trump has. In his first two years of holding the
Presidency and Congress, Trump made no effort to present legislation to combat illegal
immigration or even increase border security. There are more Asian and Central American illegal
aliens in the United States right now than before he took office.
Punishing "LIBERAL DONORS"? Heritage's appointments have helped enable a corporate crime
wave not seen in recent memory, with laughable cases of naked insider trading like the
"paused" loan to Kodak personally protected by Trump's inner circle. Every multi-national
and NGO has been scamming the PPP system, Trump's promise to crack down on this
will never materialized . White collar crime prosecutions have fallen to a
33-year low during this administration.
Is it any wonder these "donors" have so much money laying around they can use it to fund
Black Lives Matter?
This round of American populism has been defeated by the Swamp conservatives, many who were
originally Trump foes and but now gleefully wear MAGA hats and have shoved aside relatively
independent alt-light con artists and
the organic ethno-nationalist movement. The conservatives we thought we canceled, like the Jews
Ben Shapiro, Mark Levine, and Dennis Prager have come back from the dead thanks to Big Tech's
massive crackdown on independent media.
The problem for Trump is that conservatism is widely hated, especially by his voters.
Trump's tax cut for billionaires is one of his administration's only policy achievements, and
it is the
most unpopular thing he has ever done.
What will carry Trump over the finish line is the understandable desire to trigger the
libs just one last time, in a way that won't get you fired from your job or
antagonized by the FBI . The immense power the Judeo-left has amassed by uniting suburban
liberals, big capitalists, permanent bureaucrats and antifa under Trump has contributed to
white working people becoming atomized, thus demoralized, thus susceptible to Trump's campaign
year presentation as The Last White Man .
Seeing the conservative movement peering out from under the mountains of shit we shoveled on
them to dominate the Trump-era is testament to the flexibility and tenacity -- thanks to Jewish
"philanthropy" -- of the phony right. The time-sink, money-sink non-issues of abortion, the
supposed justification for confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, has re-emerged as
a supposedly important issue. Last year the abortion rate fell to the lowest
levels ever, largely due to low rates of sex between young people and the widespread
adoption of contraceptives.
But the Koch brothers know what we're really getting in ACB. The notorious "Americans for
Prosperity"
spent millions to push her through because she will be the most pro-big business justice on
the court (she sided with big business 85% of the time during her
judgeship), which explains the complete lack of a fight from the Democrats. 15 of the last 19
SCOTUS judges have been appointed by the Republican Party, yet the court has become more
pro-business and socially "liberal" anyway.
As Ted Cruz has recently stated, once the election is over and they're no longer under
pressure from voters, Trump and the GOP will be returning to
business as usual : imposing austerity during an unprecedented unemployment crisis,
ratcheting up military tensions with enemies of Israel, and as the
Heritage Foundation predicts in its conclusion of Trump v. Biden on immigration, a massive
amnesty bill that will introduce a new "merit-based immigration system" -- the H1-B program on
steroids.
While nobody thinks Trump's "platinum plan for black America" will ever come to be, the mere
suggestion will be opening up a debate we should not be having. Explicit
no-whites-need-apply social policies are another cultural artifact of the Trump era bound to
become acceptable in his second term.
For establishment Democrats, their second defeat at the hands of Trump will be enormously
discrediting, but they will profit in the short term from their comfortable position as the
opposition party. By running a candidate like Joe Biden, one can only assume they want to
lose.
But the Clinton-Biden-Obama-Pelosi nexus, who planned to fill "Sleepy Joe's" spayed cabinet
with people like John Kasich, Jeff
Flake , and various in-house neo-liberals, will be pressured by actual communists in their
party to step aside. The Republican Party will never be able to meet this challenge, instead
Trump and Charlie Kirk will be riding a helicopter to Botswana to cut the ribbon on a new
bathhouse and dance to the Village People when the next incident occurs and the nation is once
again on fire.
The New York Times has turned this election into a referendum on Woke + Wall
Street. The majority, even many non-whites, will be rejecting America's new official ideology
today.
From the beginning, one side of me has always thought Trump to be too good to be true. My
first doubts about him came when I learned his daughter was married to a powerful Jew and
she's adopted his religion. Trump has turned out to be the most pro-Zionist president ever
and has even moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem...
Best thing I have read on Trump. Here is my one reservation
"The real elite, the Jews, now realize that Trump's gun had an orange tip spray painted
black the whole time."
Forget "now realize". At least Trump's Jews – the ones anti Jewish Power Trump
supporters never report on – have ALWAYS realized that Trump is shabbos goy to the
bone. I am talking about Jews like:
Lew Eisenberg, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Mel Sembler, Ron Weiser, Steve Wynn, Elliott
Brody, Laurie Perlmutter, and Carl Icahn, not to mention Bernie Marcus. Then we have his many
Jewish personal and professional associates, who include, among others, Avi Berkowitz,
Michael Cohen, Gary Cohn, Reed Cordish, Boris Epshteyn, David Friedman, Jason Greenblatt,
Larry Kudlow, Stephen Miller, Steven Mnuchin, Jay Sekulow, David Shulkin, and Allen
Weisselberg. All those Trump-defenders out there in America should be dismayed at his vast
linkage to the people of Israel(See Thomas Dalton, True Q)
These are the big Business Republican Jews and their apparatchiks as opposed to the new
class professionals, academics, intellectuals, mediaist, journalists, and policy wonks who
comprise the neo liberal – liberal and neocon Jews of the Democrat Party. Unlike the
Democrat Jews who don't know Trump existentially – he's too vulgar and undereducated
– and really do think, or perhaps at least thought, that Trump could be the coming of a
new Hitler, the Business Jews have had long actual existential relations with Trump or know
Jews who have. Trump has been up to his ears in Jews of the Big Business type his whole life
and they know he is firmly in the Semophile bag. As Jews , Trump's Jews want Zionism and have
always known he is good for it. But they also want every break they can get for Big Business
because what could be better for Jews who prosper from neoliberalism right across their
higher class status? As Striker argues , Trump will give Jews another round of business
breaks like those he had already given in his first term. And there will go his populist
image but it will have served its purpose
All this could have been easily predicted if someone in our ethnic realism community had
taken a good look at Trump's Jews. Instead Trump was allowed to pose as "the last white
man"
Actually E Michael Jones sort of tried it but he didn't get any support. Why is that?
Well, I don't know who won yet and I doubt that anyone will ever know since everything is
rigged, but Old Joe has most of the alphabet agencies in his pocket, the MSM in his corner
and a whole lot of Obama, Clinton trotskyites lookin after him. That should mean that he
should win by a landslide, unless he lets the popular vote for Trump – into the
election process – which would be shrewd .. lol As far as America goes – SNAFU d
again.
I've been sitting here watching the election maps all night.
The counting stopped around 8:30 – 9:00 Pacific time. It hasn't moved since.
If you go into the counties on the particular states that have stalled, you can do the
math.
Clearly Trump was winning and if counts allowed, they should be able to call it.
Amazingly, they called Arizona when it was only something like 68% complete.
NV was going red but it shows it is swaying blue now it is the only state that has updated
in last 3 hours besides Arizona.
It looks like they might be trying to pull something (the Democrats/Deep state).
I've never seen this happen. There is no reason for it to have happened.
WI, MI, PA, NC and GA are all pending red, along with the 1 electoral vote in ME.
Go to bed. In morning we'll get up and Biden will be declared winner with most of the
above states declared blue (sometime during the night when most people are sleeping).
Superficial article. The author did write a few good sentences, but seems to have missed
that Trump is at most a potential catalyst for white awakening. If that does not happen, you
can't blame him. You can only blame yourself for a combination of spinelessness, stupidity,
cowardice & naivety.
If the central pillar of America, whites, are so immature or so divided, US cannot last.
No empire which was not a nation-state too, did survive in history. It disintegrated &
collapsed.
Too bad Trump is jewish and fully cooperated with his shitty ethnic group and their
endless treasonous schemes many times. The alt-right/Q/MAGA jewish psyop (the real
Russiagate), HARPA, Barr covering up many crimes of the tribe (Epstein, Trump's crimes, big
tech, fake BLM/ANTIFA protests, ), treasonous cooperation with Israel, the coronavirus flu
scam, close ties to illegal mass surveillance contractors and Chabad Lubavich, shady deals
with banks, handing money over to his fellows in "coronavirus aid packages", engaging in
trade wars that seemed to be stupid, but had the objective of imploding the US economy to
pave way for China (same for the flu scam and 2008 crisis)
Biden isn't that different either.
@Anon out civilization
and barbarism that Hudson quite matter-of-factly agreed with me that the book is, to the
extent that it will be understood, " earth-shattering" in both intent and effect .
The movement that Striker is referring to, has have a moral component, otherwise the agents
of Mammon win again. Our (((friends))) have been winning for centuries, because they have
redefined reality using their ill-gotten gains. Clown world is funded.
But whether we get Trump or Biden, we need to organize our own political movement or we
will be getting it anyway.
The point is that there's not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and
Republicans and their candidates and therefore voting is a waste of time.
It looks like they might be trying to pull something (the Democrats/Deep state).
Yes, they're trying to cheat, no doubt. Of course, nobody will care enough to do anything
about it. Had Trump actually done something for White people, the erstwhile alt-right might
have organized Charlottesville-style rallies in support of Trump, but he didn't, so they won't.
That's what he gets for being a cuck and throwing his most committed supporters under the
bus.
Trump is like the abusive alcoholic husband and American conservatives(mostly Whites)are
like the battered wife. Deep down we know the beatings will never stop, but we continue to give
our love and support to him. We know we should leave him, perhaps find a new man to share our
love with and help raise our kids. The problem is we are stuck in a neighborhood of crack heads
and heroine addicts, and the new husband would turn out worse than the last...
The old saw that Obama deported more illegals than did Trump in the first term is a lie
exposed many times over. At the border under Bush II, Mexicans caught coming across were simply
sent back on their own recognizance (ORed) and not counted as a deportation. There were
thousands and thousands treated this way by the Border Patrol and Immigration. To get the
deportation numbers up, Obama ordered that ORs be counted as deportations, so therein is the
lie.
I must agree with this article. Trump has largely betrayed his base, and is no more likely
to do better for the average working class American in his second term than he has in his
first. It's painful, I don't want to admit this either, but as they say, optimism is
cowardice.
I must however object to the notion that the Democrats are in any way "communist." Do
communists throw tens of trillions of dollars at Wall Street while starving the real economy of
investment? Do communists support "surprise medical billing?" Do communists allow all important
financial decisions to be made by private corporations? Oh sure, the Democrats will come up
with all sorts of confiscatory taxes and regulations on the middle class, no doubt, and they
will subsidize illegal immigrants – which is to say, they will subsidize cheap labor for
the elites. And yes they will be for transgender bathrooms. But communists? No way no how, the
Democrats are Neoliberal scum just like the Republicans.
Make a new political movement? It would be nice, but I can't see any way that such a thing
will not be suppressed or co-opted or the leadership bought out etc.etc. Look what happened to
"Golden Dawn" in Greece
Sadly I think the last white man is going to lose. The election has been stolen from him
with mass voting fraud, both in vote counting and mass voting by illegal voters. He has also
shot himself in the foot over the last four years with several major blunders, which did not
help, for e.g.:
1) Calling off the voting fraud investigation and disbanded the investigative team soon
after his inauguration in 2016.
2) Too thin skin and incendiary in his tweets, not very Presidential and made unnecessary
enemies.
3) Didn't do enough to reduce legal immigration incl. H1B and OPTs right from the get go,
which lost him a lot of enthusiasm from college educated voters. He only finally began to do
something about it last month, too little too late. Stephen Miller turned out to be a fake
patriot after all, who kept out true patriots like Kris Kobach from running the DHS.
4) Kept/promoted his enemies like Paul Ryan, John Kelly, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, HR
McMaster, Gina Haspel, Christopher Wray et. al, which came back to haunt him very quickly.
5) Letting wormtongue (Jared Kushner) into the WH and giving him far too much power,
including freeing all the drug dealers.
6) At times it seemed like the only thing he cares about is the stock market, he made lots
of people way richer than they were in 2016, and these are all the people who are now voting
against him, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley.
7) Too many Jews and Ziocons in his cabinet. Pandered too much to Israel, making his real
slogan more like MIGA than MAGA.
Come to think of it, Trump is not the last white man. He is the last Ziocon Jew to become
president.
Trump did not win by a landslide as so many hoped. There is a reason for the red wave fail,
and it is Trump himself and his policies.
Trump's biggest enemy is himself, he spent the entire administration making threats and
filling his administration with swamp criminals, he is slavishly whored to Netanyahu and
Israel, he even murdered Soleimani. He didn't remove the troops from a single occupied nation.
Trump's failure as a good administrator is glaring obvious and of no surprise because he had no
previous governmental experience. He just winged it based on being the Donald. What a joke. A
nation ruled by one ego that thinks it is god.
He never went on the offensive with 911 truth, which would put the entire swamp under
investigation and in a fight to stay out of prison. With 911 investigation Israel would be put
on a leash, and the Neocons would ALL be indicted, along with the Jewish newspapers and
lobbies. Because Trump REFUSED to investigate the biggest crime in history because of his god
damned loyalty to Jews and Israel, it is Trump who spent his entire presidency in a defensive
mode.
When asked if he condemns white supremacy Trump did not condemn the interviewer or defend
white people. Pathetic. He's cucked to the Jewish media narrative. And why doesn't he take
legal or military action against the Jewish media? Because he is bed with Kushners and the
Adelsons.
As a result of his own actions Trump who could of won by a landslide is now in a stalemate
with creeper senile Biden, one of the most pathetic candidates ever. Trump failures all center
around his loyalties to Jews and Israel.
So this election is looking more and more like a stalemate and I would like to bring to
everyone's attention that there is a "prophecy" of how this ends:
"The presidents of the U.S., a supposedly free country, have been abusing their power to
an increasingly greater extent. During a time of social unrest even more so than the period
of Viet Nam and Watergate, the electoral college will be evenly split over the election of
the new president. The process will stalemate, with many people clamoring for whichever
candidate they voted for, causing enormous tension in the country. Internationally it will be
a sensitive situation.
Because of the split, and the extremely volatile and explosive social unrest, putting
either candidate in office instead of the other could start a civil war or a revolution.
After a long time of impassioned speeches invoking patriotism and the founding fathers, a
compromise solution of holding another election will be taken, and a candidate will be
installed without disaster."
PS I have no dog in the fight and I don't vote, I will never vote for a lesser of two evils,
if the two pedo candidates is the best the nation can do when we have 337 million people to
pick from then maybe the nation needs to fall.
persistence and evolution of the US two/uni party system is interesting.
It is due to the "winner take all" election rules rather than a proportional system. For the
most part, US voters vote straight party anyway, so I don't see why we can't just go to a
proportional system where you vote for a party, and based upon that party's percentage of vote,
they get to fill X seats. Perhaps that would not work with the Presidential or Senate
elections, but would at least work for the House.
It looks like Republicans will be keeping the Senate. They almost did win House also.
So Biden cannot do too much, except to make some wars, regulate the international trade and
give some money to freeloaders residing in the cities.
In the mean time the rate of debt will significantly increase.
I do not think there could be any negotiations with Russians because Biden is unreliable.
Trump began betraying his voters almost as soon as he was sworn into office. The only
figures in Trump's populist campaign who survived the 2016 election were Steve Bannon, who
was banished after Charlottesville and is now facing federal charges at the hands of Trump's
own Department of Justice, and Jeff Sessions, whose political career was destroyed by Trump's
calculated malice.
Remember Kris Kobach and how he was going to investigate widespread election fraud? that's
something that might have been useful. Whatever happened to him, anyway? Just kind of faded
away. No support from Drumpf. Last I heard, Kobach was held in contempt of court for failing to
adequately advise noncitizens of their "right" to vote:
And Steve King -- sure, he was initially a Cruz supporter, but backed Trump enthusiastically
later on. King's mild civic nationalism and strong support for common sense, patriotic
immigration reform are exactly the agenda that Trump claimed to support. But when the
corporate "news" media and the entire Uniparty attacked Steve King as "inadequately anti-White"
-- Trump did <a href+' https://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-distances-itself-from-king-comments/"was
quick to disavow. King's longstanding
fanatical
Israel Firstism did nothing to save him. It's not enough to support semitic supremacism in
the current year; you have to be actively anti-White as well, goy.
Zemurray's original name was Schmuel Zmurri. He was born in Kishinev, Bessarabia, Russia
(present-day Chişinău, Moldova) to a poor Jewish family that emigrated
to America when he was fourteen years old.
In early 20th century, he went to Honduras to take over the banana crop business. He hired
pe0ple to do a coup for his business interests in 1910.
@Rufus Clyde Too group
has been around for more than a decade. It was very clever to imply they were deeply involved
and have them seem to be the originators of the predator exposures and firings.
Also, think it a coincidence that so many Repubs in Congress either "retired",
decided to do something else or whose campaigns weren't going to be funded by the RNC in 2018?
NO. They were forced out because they were corrupt.
Think Guliani bothered to go spend weeks in Ukraine just for vacation? NO, he went to get
firsthand evidence of the Biden corruption. Etc, etc ..
@Zarathustra "Trump did
for the jew as much as he could."
How does the cliche go? Live by the jew, die by the jew? Parasites are not known for their
loyalty. The tribe squeezed all it could out of their useful idiot, Donnie the Dummy, and then
deftly jumped to a new host, Joey Depends, who will willingly advance the tribe's self-serving
agenda in ways yet undreamed of even by the political cognoscenti. Donnie appears to be a
vindictive old bitch and might just form a populist third party along the lines of Teddy
Roosevelt's moronic Bull Moose now that the tribe has discarded him like a wad of used stained
toilet paper.
@Zarathustra he Jews and
being vetted by them. He was a loose cannon and had to go.
I further believe that war with China is more likely under Biden than Trump. The U.S. dollar
has been the reserve currency since right after WWII. The rise of China threatens that so China
will eventually have to be dealt with militarily. The Jews must maintain the U.S. dollar as
reserve currency else much of their ill gotten gains tend to evaporate over time.
I am positive that local Jews have large investments in China.
That one I have no information on. It could well be true.
Multiculturalism has always been a stopgap, a temporary pause on the way to disintegration
for empires. The elites always put their hopes in it imagining they will satisfy angry
minorities with minor adjustments. It never works. Just look at the Black armed militias. Not
even systematic Black privilege n Supremacism is enough for them. They won't stop even for
Biden until they ethnically cleanse whites completely from large parts of the country dominate
the rest. We are past elections now. The war has begun.
The stage is set for another false flag with everyone distracted and caught up with the
plandemic and/or political unrest, and regardless of which puppet gets selected, the
Ziocorporate regime is certain to be rolling out more AI and tech to manipulate, control and
frame the masses. The "anti-semitic terrorism" angle of Islamism now colluding with neo-Nazi
white supremacism is as hilarious as it is scary, considering the US/EU Ziocorporate terrorist
regimes' recent interventions in Libya, Syria and Ukraine and the sudden rise in ISlamist
events in NATO/EU countries. This late stage fusion of imperial capitalism with communism in
the West is looking like a complete disaster for mankind.
@Katrinka in droves, but
there is massive fraud going on in GA, NC, NV, AZ, PA, WI and MI, as well as all the blue
states. Not only are votes miscounted, ballots conjured out of thin air for Biden, I suspect
many are also voting illegally since the DMV that registers voters in these states have no
capacity to check their citizenship status. The GOP needs to form an election integrity
committee and conduct a thorough audit of every state to verify their voters' eligibility. It
is a massive undertaking, but it must be done. There is no integrity left in our election
system.
The DNC should rename themselves the EJM, the End Justifies Means party. Democrats are a
bunch of shameless frauds.
It's so simple most don't even see it. American Jews are Trotskyites and Israeli Jews are
Stalinists. That's it Bolshevism 101, come to think of it there is no 102. It seems Mr. Trump
did not choose wisely.
"... Here context matters. The US, or those who control the US, are trying to maintain American hegemony, or near hegemony, over the world. America has 600-800 military bases around the globe depending on what you regard as a military base. While many tens of thousands of America sleep on the sidewalks, while infrastructure crumbles, while standards of living fall and medical care is pricey but poor, the Pentagon always gets its budget. At the level of the White House, the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel, the arms industry, the important thing is to maintain the flow of money. And dominate the world. ..."
"... Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude. Not good. He has surrounded himself with over-age Cold Warriors, with generals, with the pathologically aggressive hangers-on from think-tank Washington: John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Steve Bannon, and minor squibs of like outlook. He has pulled the US out of the arms-control treaties, START, INF, Open Skies. He has pushed NATO against Russian borders. In the Legion halls of Idaho, this may seem virile, the sort of thing that John Wayne would do. Back the commies down. Show them who is boss. No. It is just pointless and dangerous. ..."
"... Worse, there is a new kid on the block. China is growing. It behaves no worse than other countries, does not inflict on the world nearly the destruction and horror that the United States does, but it is growing. For Washington, this makes it not a competitor but an enemy. This is very much Trump's policy. Don't negotiate. Threaten. "Do as I say, or I will break you." ..."
"... Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made Russia and China into enemies (why?) has forced ..."
"... Then there is Iran, a geopolitical linchpin, having eighty million people, a large and competent military, and lots and lots of oil. Under the JCPOA, the nuke deal, the Iranians were posed happily to integrate themselves into the Western economy -- buy hundreds of airliners from Boeing and Airbus, telecommunications gear, sell oil, have western companies develop its huge hydrocarbon reserves. ..."
"... Then Trump pulled out of the treaty and, led by the egregious Pompeo, tries to starve the Iranians into installing a puppet government. Iran, seeing that the West is not friendly, turns to the East, allies itself tightly with Russia and China. Tehran and Beijing are about to sign a twenty-five year, multimanymuchoslotsa billion dollar development deal. ..."
"... Then Trump had Soleimani, an Iranian hero, murdered. This doubtless played well with his partisans in Joe's Bar in Chicago, being manly and decisive and making America great again. It was also idiotic, making Iranians even less likely to cave to American pressure. ..."
"... With Trump the country elected an attitude, not a President. Truculence, bravado, and an in-your-face aggressiveness are no substitute for competence. ..."
Everybody and his goat has weighed in on the election, so I will too. This will make no
difference to Trump's core followers, for whom he is a cult figure, or to those who detest him.
The undecided may be interested.
Note how insubstantial Trump has been, pretending to be what he isn't and claiming to have
done what he hasn't. Does no one notice? He has heavy support from Evangelicals. Ask him to
name the books of the Pentateuch, or the second book, or what church he regularly attended, or
ever attended, in New York. He was going to end the wars, but what war has he ended? To reduce
the trade deficit, but it has grown . To get rid of
all illegal aliens withing two years, but have they gone? To bring back factories from China
and Mexico, but how many have returned? He is called a law-and-order President. Yet he hid,
besieged, in the White House during the greatest eruption of lawlessness the country has ever
seen, with a statue being pulled down across the street from his house. His handling of the
virus? America remains hardest hit in the world, and it worsens by the day.
Trump, like all Presidents, has fulfilled the two critical jobs expected of him, protecting
Wall Street and the military budget. What else has he done?
Almost nothing. All in good fun. But in the crucial field of international relations, he has
been a disaster. I suspect that few of his followers in Flint and Gary study things beyond the
borders. They should.
Here context matters. The US, or those who control the US, are trying to maintain
American hegemony, or near hegemony, over the world. America has 600-800 military bases around
the globe depending on what you regard as a military base. While many tens of thousands of
America sleep on the sidewalks, while infrastructure crumbles, while standards of living fall
and medical care is pricey but poor, the Pentagon always gets its budget. At the level of the
White House, the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel, the arms industry, the important thing is to maintain
the flow of money. And dominate the world.
Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude. Not good. He has
surrounded himself with over-age Cold Warriors, with generals, with the pathologically
aggressive hangers-on from think-tank Washington: John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Steve
Bannon, and minor squibs of like outlook. He has pulled the US out of the arms-control
treaties, START, INF, Open Skies. He has pushed NATO against Russian borders. In the Legion
halls of Idaho, this may seem virile, the sort of thing that John Wayne would do. Back the
commies down. Show them who is boss. No. It is just pointless and dangerous.
Worse, there is a new kid on the block. China is growing. It behaves no worse than other
countries, does not inflict on the world nearly the destruction and horror that the United
States does, but it is growing. For Washington, this makes it not a competitor but an enemy.
This is very much Trump's policy. Don't negotiate. Threaten. "Do as I say, or I will break
you."
Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a
disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made Russia
and China into enemies (why?) has forced them to unite. This is -- how shall I
put it? -- stupid. Russia and China are not natural allies. China is a crowded country with 1.4
billion smart, industrious people, rapidly growing influence, and a very long indefensible
border with Russia. Russia has barely 146 million people, a comparatively static economy, vast
empty lands with rich resources. The Russians may have noticed this. The two have had
territorial disputes. This is not a marriage made, as we say, in heaven. Instead of playing
them against each other, allying with one against the other, or leaving them the hell alone,
Trump has forced them into close alliance.
This is Trump's policy, in the sense that if it happens during his presidency, it is his
baby, though it is fairly evident that Pompeo is Trumps brains and Trump is Pompeo's
enabler.
Then there is Iran, a geopolitical linchpin, having eighty million people, a large and
competent military, and lots and lots of oil. Under the JCPOA, the nuke deal, the Iranians were
posed happily to integrate themselves into the Western economy -- buy hundreds of airliners
from Boeing and Airbus, telecommunications gear, sell oil, have western companies develop its
huge hydrocarbon reserves.
Then Trump pulled out of the treaty and, led by the egregious Pompeo, tries to starve
the Iranians into installing a puppet government. Iran, seeing that the West is not friendly,
turns to the East, allies itself tightly with Russia and China. Tehran and Beijing are about to
sign a twenty-five year, multimanymuchoslotsa billion dollar development deal.
Three enemies, united, where none was before. Fucking brilliant, Mike. Just fucking
brilliant.
Then Trump had Soleimani, an Iranian hero, murdered. This doubtless played well with his
partisans in Joe's Bar in Chicago, being manly and decisive and making America great again. It
was also idiotic, making Iranians even less likely to cave to American pressure.
The same counterproductiveness appears in his "trade war" with China, in fact an attempt to
wreck China commercially and technologically. This is packaged by Trump as "standing up to
China," "deterring China," "containing China," but it might as accurately be called
"encouraging the genie to leave the bottle," or "asking for it."
A quick example: Huawei was contentedly using Google's Android operating system on its
smartphones. Android and iOS, both American, dominated the world market for operating systems.
Huawei, with the predictability of sunrise, responded by crash-developing its own OS,
Harmony . With equal predictability and suddenness it will improve it, further grow its app
store (HMS, Huawei Mobile Services) and, on a guess, encourage other companies to use it. It
will be said that a new OS won't work, can't compete, will take decades, and all the things
that are customarily said of things China does. Wait.
Trump's result: A new and, likely, serious competitor to Google. Good job, Don.
There is more to come. Precisely because of Trump's technology-denial policy, China has
launched a massive program to make itself tech-independent. It will take time, but it will
happen. Every time China develops a replacement for an American product, US companies will lose
the Chinese market for it -- and shortly face a competitor.
The root of the matter? With Trump the country elected an attitude, not a President.
Truculence, bravado, and an in-your-face aggressiveness are no substitute for competence.
Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he is blankly ignorant of history, geography,
technology, the military. In Hawaii, when taken to the USS Arizona memorial, he didn't know
what it was. He has opined that the Spanish flu of 1917 (his date)
influenced the end of WWII . It would be instructive for a reporter to ask him what
countries border Iran, where one finds the Strait of Malacca, and why it matters.
The more enthusiastic of his followers seem to be equally ignorant and, worse, have no idea
why a President should know such things. Is this how we choose Presidents, and the sort of
Presidents we choose?
Write Fred at [email protected] Put the letters pdq anywhere in the
subject line to avoid heartless autodeletion.
Check out Fred's splendid
books ! Sedition, outrage, distortion, treason and other amusements. Enjoy accounts of
America, not the disaster by the same name now peddled as the real thing. Cheap at the
price.
This chart is a good reminder why Trump should be re-elected.
Suck it, Fred.
Oh and Mexico's doing worse on Covid when you account for their criminal undercounting of
Covid deaths. When you have one of the lowest testing rates of any large country, then it's
easy to undercount.
This article would read fairly well if you would just replace all instances of "Trump"
with "the US Feral Government". You're gonna blame the continuing stupidity of this huge
Beast of a Government on the one man? Do you think he is King of America? He can hardly get
anything done, which IS, BTW, partly his problem – the one thing you are quite right
about is the stupidity in the President's hiring of swamp creatures to drain the swamp. I
don't understand this myself but chalk it up to a lack of confidence in his own
instincts.
Commenter Bragadocious has already brought up the very encouraging numbers of admitted
"refugees" that I have read on VDare, but there are other below-the-radar good efforts by the
President regarding immigration. Of course, most of us have been disappointed quite a bit,
but lately I've been more gung-ho – anyone interested, please read VDare's "NYT Delivers Unintentional Endorsement Of Trump's Immigration Triumph" . (Hey,
didn't you use to work there, Fred? You ought to at least keep up a bit.)
Peak Stupidity points out "The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly" regarding the President
and this election – see "The Bad" , "The Good" , and
"The
Ugly" .
I honestly don't understand why you're so concerned with what happens to America anyway,
Fred. You live in the great country of Mexico. Is it that everything disparaging you write
makes you feel better about your decision to high-tail it down there?
Presidentially and socially we face two alternatives: an easy anesthetized slide into
certain doom or a panicked descent kicking against the looming walls of our trap. Of course,
that is not what either pretends to be, nor what the masses think they are.
In the end I can't tell a nickel's worth of difference. If someone could guarantee that
one alternative was more likely than another to end in nuclear holocaust than the other I
would allow a difference, but I don't see it. Which ever we "choose" this time, the pendulum
will swing until a tipping point is reached.
It would be nice to have a serious realist in the White House, but I don't see the people
voting for one. Maybe one will ride in on a white horse.
An excellent and accurate article. However, it should note that Biden's history shows he
will probably be worse. Despite his tough talk, Trump never started a new war, which is why
the Deep State hates him. They teed up four excuses to attack Iran: the strange drone attack
on a Saudi oil facility, the strange mines placed on a tanker, flying a drone over Iran that
was shot down, and doing nothing when Iran fired missiles at American bases in Iraq.
Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a
disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made
Russia and China into enemies (why?) has forced them to unite. This is -- how shall I put
it? -- stupid.
This isn't accurate, letting Russia and China unite was a notable feature of the Obama
administration and probably goes back further than that. Remember the pivot to Asia? Remember
Victoria Nuland handing out cookies at the Maidan? But you are absolutely right about Trump
solely pushing Iran into the arms of Russia and China.
Fred is right, Trump is a hee-haw Jackass who takes the prize for the dumbest, most
delusional, most corrupt and most incompetent POTUS in all history.
He's run America into the ground with his failed trade war, his delusional (un)management
of Covid-19 and all his damn fool gross stupidity. Just like his 6 failed casinos, his Trump
University and his bankrupt listed company DJT.
Everything just fail, fail, and fail. Even an Orangutan taken from the zoo would have done
better as POTUS than him.
Sorry, but to rewrite your comment, Trump, just like all his predecessors, has fulfilled
the Three critical jobs expected of him: 1. Armed and expanded Jewish colonial fascism
in Palestine, 2. Continue to protect the 1% (Wall Street) and 3. Increased U.S. military
budget by continuing to sale arms to fascist regimes.
Yes, he is a blathering, bullshitting salesman who built hotels and had a reality TV show.
But he didn't start any wars. Bombed the odd airstrip, but that was about it. Who was the
last President you could say that about? If he loses, strap in for more wars, possibly even
the Big One. And as for China, before we get too awestruck about their economic 'miracle' --
which was remarkable -- note that their money supply (M2) is 2.5 times their GDP. $2.50 for
every $1 they need for their economy. Why? To prop up a banking system that is a total Ponzi
scheme. To say they have an internal debt problem doesn't begin to cover it. Sure, it allowed
them to build super fast trains and cities with no-one in them, but they can't get Chinese
people to consume because they are all desperately saving for health care. The public health
care is dreadful. It was a miracle, sure, but full of holes (which makes it no less
impressive).
Fred highlights lots of problems, but I don't see why the other two Presidents will be
better at solving them. They certainly won't be, because they don't see them as problems.
They will start more wars, they will ignore the trade deficit, they will bring in millions
of immigrants, they will keep selling off manufacturing to cheaper places indifferently, and
they will be indebted to their BLM fascists when in power, meaning violence will increase
either way.
They are for Empire, and they don't keep to the treaties anyways – at least Trump is
honest when he tears them up. It is, according to Al-Anfal 55-63 at least, up to those who
get betrayed to tear up the treaties, and they should have long done so anyways.
Killing Suleimani? Is there a bigger misstep that could have been done by the Empire, that
cost so little in terms of human life to the ME, and actually improved the reputation of
Trump with the crazies whilst making the wind down accelerate?!
They will be for NATO, which will stop being an NA and will become a World Treaty
Organisation.
He sure ain't perfect – he is a very weak or trusting manager, it seems – but
he tries to move in the right direction often, even if he is prevented from taking even more
than baby steps. The other two Presidents will march into the abyss whilst laughing at their
awesome brilliance!
Why was Trump elected in the first place, Fred? In a well-run country with real options,
Trump would have been laughed at. When your rulers actively sell you out, hate you, and are
in the process of replacing you, a Donald Trump is a realistic option. That is sad. What's
worse is that even after Trump's election, the PTBs are doubling down on the treason and
hatred of Americans. As bad as Trump is, what is the option? And what can one man really
do?
It's too easy to just blame the situation on stupid Trump supporters, as if their votes
created America's problems.
@Weston Waroda rm the Ukraine military. Ukies don't just take their kalashnikovs and send
them to the metal cutters – their corrupt generals sold all the rifles, motors, and
assorted other arms and kept the 35 million. This makes Neo Nazi's much more stronger at the
Maidan, which was delayed because of Yanukovych and his kleptocrazy regime. Thanks to the
African born Obama and Joe the War lover – Ukraine to day is totally CIA,Mossad, Nato
etc. We could dissect Libya and Syria but we would find the same Satanic World Order boys
– Barrack and Joe – doing their thing for the Cabal. Oh – I lived in
Ukraine 08 – 2014 and then had to switch residency – for obvious reasons. Spacibo
You have to give credit to Trump for stopping the anti white brainwashing AKA
as 'diversity training' which was based on the white hating manifesto AKA 'critical
race theory.' It turned out that under the radar big business and many parts of the
government were forcing whites to repent for their racist attitudes and write forced
confessions. President Trump gave the middle finger to that with much deconstructing
still to come.
I can't fathom how a descendant of the illustrious Tidewater Reeds can
turn his back on the accomplishments of his Anglo Saxon people.
America began as a Protestant project which is why we are fortunate to have
the most enlightened system of jurisprudence in the world. Say what you will about
Trump's brash New York City manner but at least he is a defender of Western
Civilization. I most look forward to cleaning house at the DOJ & CIA if he wins.
That and smashing Big Tech into a thousand pieces.
I'm not sure I want someone like you lecturing us on morality, Fred.
You're basically stating over and over, that the US should strive to maintain its 'Only
Empire in the World' approach (which it did since at least Clinton),
but Trump is just doing it wrong.
@Craig Nelsen f stupidity is Mr. Reed's part about Trump causing Russia and China to be
allied. WTH? Trump wanted to ignore the pretension by the Neocons (if they are serious it be
even stupider) that Russia is still the USSR, our arch enemy. The MIC and Neocons blocked his
rapprochement with Russia. President Trump's attempt to end the completely unfair trade deal
the sell-outs handed to China in the mid-1990s is one of his admirable efforts. Relations
have become bad mostly due to that the Chinese don't want a fair deal with trade. They are
used to taking advantage of us in every way possible – even the Great Chinese Visiting Scholar
Scam .
Trump is a symptom of the disease which the author mistakes for the disease itself. That's
why Trump won in 2016 because the white masses who elected him needed to vomit their own
existential angst against the System. The more petulant Trump became, the more love the white
masses have for him because that's how they feel against the System which has betrayed their
own white interests.
The author correctly points out that Trump does exactly what other US Presidents before
him have done which is to promote the economic interests of the US Capitalist Class and the
US Military-Industrial Complex, by cutting income taxes and increasing the defense budget,
respectively. He also mentions Trump's trade war and technology bans against China which has
served more as a "canary in a coal mine" than anything else, hastening the pace by which
Chinese companies have been diversifying away from the USA, since the GFC in 2008, including
developing their own indigenous technologies which have given rise to homegrown tech giants
like Huawei and TikTok. While Trump's anti-China moves were driven by political
self-aggrandizement, China's response was driven by its economic self-interest, which
explains its low-key approach to resolving its trade disputes with the USA.
But the author missed something else which is Trump's hostility to Globalist causes such
as unrestricted immigration, outsourcing of manufacturing and services jobs, foreign wars,
multilateral treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord, international institutions such as
the WHO, trade deals such as the TPP and NAFTA, among others. His most glaring omission is to
avoid any mention of Trump's decision to withdraw US troops out of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Germany as well as preventing another regime-change war against Iran.
While his economic policies range from the patently mediocre (promoting "fracking") to
outright stupid (imposing tariffs), Trump's biggest successes are in fact in the areas of US
foreign policy in which he DID carry out his "America First" strategy which has endeared him
to his white supporters but which has disheartened his enemies in the US Deep State.
Of course, that's exactly why his white supporters elected him in 2016 and why the US Deep
State is doing everything it can to defeat him in 2020 because a second term of Trump would
hasten the decline and fall of the US Empire.
"He has pushed NATO against Russian borders." No, after Reagan assured Gorbachev that NATO
would not move an inch closer to Russia with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Bill
Clinton moved NATO to Russia's borders as a provocation, along with slaughtering Slavs and
proving the inability of Russia to continue its traditional role as protector of the Slavs.
This was followed by BUSH's and OBAMA's continuation of Color Revolutions to establish US
puppets in former Soviets (and more NATO bases).
The Biden/ Nuland-led Maidan Revolution in Ukraine meant that the per capita GDP dropped
over half by deflecting the internal corruption into external Americans' and American
Ukrainians' pockets. For calling out that US corruption and briefly holding up more weapons,
money and provocation with Russia, Trump was impeached. Ukraine lost Crimea BEFORE Trump, and
he was stymied from removing troops by a Congress who refused to accept him as an Elected
President and Commander-in-Chief.
While Trump has lots of issues, calling him out for doing exactly what the last three
Presidents before him did, really undercuts the article's message. Scapegoating Trump doesn't
change reality.
Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude.
Wow, you have been asleep for the last four years? The antics of the Democrats and their
female goddess seem to have completely passed you by. Just to fill you in on some basic
detail, the Democrats (what an ironic name) have been waging battle after battle, you could
call it a war, against the President because they just couldn't accept the result of the last
election. They felt they were entitled to the presidency. You say Trump is looking for a
fight, the Democrats didn't just look, they launched the war and lost.
We all know that Trump is bellicose and a blowhard but he said all the right things in
2015-16. My issue with Trump is his betrayals. He threatened to end birthright citizenship
but never followed through. He was working with Tom Cotton to reduce legal immigration and
end chain migration but gave up after less than a year. He should have ended AFFH shortly
after taking office but didn't do so until just two months ago. The list goes on.
Another reason his administration wasn't as successful as we all hoped is that he didn't
know how to staff a government as PCR feared and predicted. He thought he could just ride in
to Washington and wing it and start barking orders it doesn't work that way.
Trump is not a visionary like Obama was. In order to qualify for Obama's administration
you had to think and see the world exactly like he did. Trump seems to get his jollies from
hiring people who disagree with him and work to undermine his agenda.
Now Trump is courting black nationalists like rapper Ice Cube while condemning white
nationalists. This would be like Obama courting David Duke on a plan to help poor and working
class white Americans.
Trump has given us three conservative SCOTUS's justices. He has also exposed the deep
state, the alphabet agencies, and the MSM for what they are. Evil anti American forces.
And all the while, staving off three bullshit coup attempts and constant personal and
political assault!
And what better would we get from proven corrupt and dementia laden career politician Joe
Biden Fred?
Fuck you!
I'm voting for the entertaining one. Politics is interactive theater. Was it George Carlin
who said that if voting mattered they wouldn't let us do it? No truer words. Plus I like the
Melania fashion watch on Breitbart....
BRICS began back in Obama days. More importantly its inception was due to crippling
Russian sanctions due to the bogus Magnitsky Act, which was passed during the W. Bush reign.
BTW do you know who sponsored the act in Congress? McCain, Biden, and Obama. All are/were
Zionists and Necon approved.
Hmm, as disappointing as Trump has been, and believe me, he has been a disappointment, he
is the best President in my lifetime of 59 years. Of course, given the list of empty suits
that we have been given as our leaders over the last 59 years, saying Trump is the best of
the lot is not saying much. Honestly has America elected a decent man to hold the office of
POTUS in the last 120 years?
At the very minimum Trump has exposed the FAKE MEDIA, hell, that is more than the others
ever did while in office because as we all know the American people have been lied to by the
Jew Media for over 100 years and counting. IF anyone can come up with reasons why anyone from
JFK to Obama were better for America than Trump, I am all ears. Personally, I give Trump an
overall D on his report card while the others I give a flat F. Do Whites really want a
Biden/Harris Presidency? I voted Trump, again. No REAL choice as usual.
All the potus have been under zionist control since they had JFK assassinated and then
came the zionist/Israeli and traitors in the ZUS government attack on the WTC on 911 and this
was blamed on the Arabs and gave the zionists the excuse to destroy the middle east for
Israels greater Israel agenda, using the ZUS military and AL CIADA and MOSSAD and MI6 created
mercenaries to to the destruction and the killing.
Trump is just another in a long line of zionist puppets and Biden is the same and the one
ie the libertarian Joanne Jorgensen who is against these wars, is ignored, and the beat goes
on.
Nobody gives a shit in Joe's Bar in Chicago about the killing of the Iranian general but
you may want to check the bars in Tel Aviv to see if they're rejoicing
Now enough about China there are plenty of other sycophants on unz.com without you joining in. Stick to defending wetbacks which
suits you naturally and it's more palatable.
As to Russia and China: first, you outline Chinese population treat to Russia and then
second, you breathlessly claim they're boon companions so, which is it?
Lastly, I noticed that the one group which has most benefited from the orange man
presidency while undercutting his nationalist credentials which would help traditional
Americans isn't even mentioned in the article no names or hints. What gives?
Not that foreign policy is high priority for most of the USA electorate, but still it looks
like some potential Trump voters do not approve this message.
That's why many of them probably will not vote for Trump in 2020, or will not vote at all
because there is no difference in this area between Trump and Biden: you can call the same
Zionist cutlet with two different names. but it is still the same cutlet.
People voted in Trump to be a protector of workers and lower middle class against financial
oligarchy. Instead, they got "Ziotrump", a marionette of Israel lobby who is first and foremost
the protector of Israel, MIC and the billionaire class.
The question is: Is Zionism an official ideology of the USA ruling elite? Zionism as any far right nationalism has it pluses
and minuses, but why this important decision is not discussed?
Notable quotes:
"... I like being energy independent, don't you? I'm sure that most of you noticed when you go to fill up your tank in your car, oftentimes it's below two dollars. You say how the hell did this happen? While I'm president, America will remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. We will remain energy independent. It should be for many many years to come. The fact is, we don't have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. We've been very good to Israel. Other than that, we don't have to be in the Middle East." ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
For many years the security framework in the Middle East has been described as a bilateral
arrangement whereby Washington gained access to sufficient Saudi Arabian oil to keep the energy
market stable while the United States provided an armed physical presence through its bases in
the region and its ability to project power if anyone should seek to threaten the Saudi
Kingdom. The agreement was reportedly worked out in a February 1945 meeting between
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, just as World War 2 was drawing
to a close. That role as protector of Saudi Arabia and guarantor of stable energy markets in
the region later served as part of the justification for the U.S. ouster of the Iraqi Army from
Kuwait in 1991.
After 9/11, the rationale became somewhat less focused. The United States invaded
Afghanistan, did not capture or kill Osama bin Laden due to its own incompetence, and, rather
than setting up a puppet regime and leaving, settled down to a nineteen-years long and still
running counter-insurgency plus training mission. Fake intelligence produced by the neocons in
the White House and Defense Department subsequently implicated Iraq in 9/11 and led to the
political and military disaster known as the Iraq War.
During the 75 years since the end of the Second World War the Middle East has experienced
dramatic change, to include the withdrawal of the imperial European powers from the region and
the creation of the State of Israel. And the growth and diversification of energy resources
mean that it is no longer as necessary to secure the petroleum that moves in tankers through
the Persian Gulf. Lest there be any confusion over why the United States continues to be
involved in Syria, Iraq, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, President Donald Trump remarkably
provided some clarity relating to the issue when on September 8 th
he declared that the U.S. isn't any longer in the Middle East to secure oil supplies, but
rather because we "want to protect Israel."
The comment was made by Trump during a rally in Winston-Salem, N.C . as part of a
boast about his having reduced energy costs for consumers. He said " I like being energy
independent, don't you? I'm sure that most of you noticed when you go to fill up your tank in
your car, oftentimes it's below two dollars. You say how the hell did this happen? While I'm
president, America will remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. We
will remain energy independent. It should be for many many years to come. The fact is, we don't
have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. We've been very good to
Israel. Other than that, we don't have to be in the Middle East."
The reality is, of course, that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been all about
Israel for a very long time, at least since the presidency of Bill Clinton, who has been
sometimes dubbed the first Jewish president for his deference to Israeli interests. The Iraq
War is a prime example of how neoconservatives and Israel Firsters inside the United States
government conspired to go to war to protect the Jewish State. In key positions at the Pentagon
were Zionists Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Feith's Office of Special Plans developed the
"alternative intelligence" linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and also to a mythical nuclear
program that was used to justify war. Feith was so close to Israel that he partnered in a law
firm that had an office in Jerusalem. The fake intelligence was then stove-piped to the White
House by fellow neocon "Scooter" Libby who worked in the office of Vice President Dick
Cheney.
After the fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also had something to say about the
origins of the war, commenting that the United States had
gone into Iraq because Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld bought into the neoconservative
case made for doing so by "the JINSA crowd," by which he meant the Israel Lobby organization
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
And if any more confirmation about the origins of the Iraq War were needed, one might turn
to Philip Zelikow, who was involved in the planning process while working on the staff of
Condoleezza Rice. He said "The unstated threat. And
here I criticize the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over
and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says:
'Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use
nuclear weapons against us?' So I'll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has
been since 1990. It's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its
name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And
the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it's not a
popular sell."
So here is the point that resonates: even in 2002-3, when the Israel Lobby was not as
powerful as it is now, the fact that the U.S. was going to war on a lie and was actually acting
on behalf of the Jewish State was never presented in any way to the public, even though
America's children would be dying in the conflict and American taxpayers would be footing the
bill. The media, if it knew about the false intelligence, was reliably pro-Israel and helped
enable the deception.
And that same deception continued to this day until Trump spilled the beans earlier this
month. And now, with the special security arrangement that the U.S. has entered into with
Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the ability to exit from a troublesome region
that does not actually threaten American interests has become very limited. As guarantor of the
agreement, Washington now has an obligation to intervene on the behalf of the parties involved.
Think about that, a no-win arrangement that will almost certainly lead to war with Iran,
possibly to include countries like Russia and China that will be selling it military equipment
contrary to U.S. "sanctions."
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Excellent synopsis of the situation. And if we look into the founding of Israel, we find
it was founded by war profiteers. This would explain why peace has been so "elusive". It has
been relentlessly dodged. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the 'War on Terror'" https://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-roots-of-war-on.html
This declaration is against the will of the American people. Hawkish policies of this
nature, that endanger the American lives should be confirmed by a referendum of the people.
Of course that would be logical step in a democracy but USA is not a democracy but a diktat
of backroom unellected ruling clique.
990. Jews are the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ whites just as whites are
the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ non-whites. Let me explain how that
works.
Why do we observe Jews at the forefront of many cutting-edge industries? (for example the
media/arts and financial industries are indeed rife with them). The low-IQ answer is, of
course, a simplistic conspiracy theory: Jews form an evil cabal that created all these
industries from scratch to "destroy culture" (or at least what low-IQ people think is
culture, i.e. some previous, obsolete state of culture, i.e. older, lower culture, i.e.
non-culture). And, to be sure, there is a lot of decadence in these industries. But, in an
advanced civilization, there is a lot of decadence everywhere anyway! It's an essential
prerequisite even! So it makes perfect sense that the most capable people in such a
civilization will also be the most decadent! The stereotype of the degenerate
cocaine-sniffing whoremonging or homosexual Hollywood or Wall Street operative belongs here.
Well, buddy, if YOU were subjected to the stresses and temptations of the Hollywood or Wall
Street lifestyles, maybe you'd be a "degenerate" too! But you lack the IQ for that, so of
course you'll reduce the whole enterprise to a simplistic resentful fairy tale that seems
laughable even to children: a bunch of old bearded Jews gathered round a large table planning
the destruction of civilization! Well I say enough with this childish nonsense! The Jews are
simply some of the smartest and most industrious people around, ergo it makes sense that
they'll be encountered at or near all the peaks of the dominant culture, being
overrepresented everywhere in it, including therefore in its failings and excesses! This is
what it means to be the best! It doesn't mean that you are faultless little angels who can do
no wrong, you brainless corn-fed nitwits! There's a moving passage somewhere in Nietzsche
where he relates that Europe owes the Jews for the highest sage (Spinoza), and the highest
saint (Jesus), and he'd never even heard of Freud or Einstein! In view of all the
immeasurable gifts the Jewish spirit has lavished on humanity, anti-semitism in the coming
world order will be a capital offense, if I have anything to say on the matter. The slightest
word against the Jews, and you're a marked man: I would have not only you, but your entire
extended family wiped out, just to be sure. You think you know what the Devil is, but he's
just the lackey taking my orders. Entire cities razed to the ground (including the entire
Middle East), simply because one person there said something bad about "the Jews", that's how
I would have the future! Enough with this stupid meme! To hell with all of you brainless
subhumans! You've wasted enough of our nervous energy on this stupid shit! And the same goes
to low-IQ non-whites who blame all their troubles on whites! And it's all true: Jews and
whites upped the stakes for everybody by bringing into the world a whole torrent of new
possibilities which your IQ is too low to handle! So whatcha gonna do about it? Are you all
bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any of you fucking
pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!
Honestly, I like way better out in the open like this. Now there is no reason to worry
about all the other BS excuses, it's all on the table.
So now, as a public, we have been informed; so what are we going to do about it? Or are
they so confident about their position that they know they can announce it to he world openly
and be sure that there will be zero consequences?
Protector, personal armies, saboteurs, financiers, assassin's, propagandists, liars,
thieves, rapists, slavers, and that is just for starters – which includes inside and
outside of the former country called the USA.
No, you are wrong. The problem with the 'industriousness' is that it is characterized by
the principle of profit before all, no matter how immoral the activity. People who do that
don't care about a civilized society and should not be able to reap the benefits of one.
Also high IQ isn't exemplified by trickery, lying, subverting and eroding the morals of
the host society.
The US is not only the protector, but has been the enabler of the mafia from the
start.
Chaim.Weizman and Nathan Sokolow approach the British with a dirty deal. The Zionists
offer to use their international influence to bring the US into the war on Britain's
side, while undermining Germany from within. The price that Britain must pay for U.S.
entry is to steal Palestine from Ottoman Turkey (Germany's ally) and allow the Jews to
settle there. Zionist agitated anti-German propaganda was unleashed in the US while the
Zionists and Marxists of Germany begin to undermine Germany's war effort from within.
Wilson establishes the Committee on Public Information (CPI) for the purpose of
manipulating public opinion in support of the war.
-M.S. King, The Bad War, p 50.
Similar scenario for "WW2" which was little more than a continuation of the previous
biggie. They really ought to be known as the One World Wars since they were obviously part
of the plan for the world to be dominated by the International mafia through such creations
as the League of Subjects and the United Slave Nations with the capitol at Tel Aviv.
Yes, Dr. Giraldi, you hit the nail on the head again.
However, the problem is that most White Middle Class Americans, are satisfied and fully
compliant with this situation where the USA is a Megalethon Vassal and Servile State
for the poor little Israeli state .
Also, let us be honest with ourselves, Blacks and other minorities on more occasions do
dare to speak out on this issue, only to get trounced upon by the MSM and silence and
snickers by the stay safe White American Middle Class. Do you ever find a Main Line
White Politician speaking up for America's interests and placing them first vis a vis our
best little ally ??? Only when it comes to Afro or the Hispanic – Americans
sticking their heads up a little does Middle White Americana get all worked up and
emotionally charged.
The White Middle Class and most certainly the well moneyed Corporate Class of America,
does not mind giving away huge transfers of their tax dollars, national debt, high
technologies, military hardware, and even their uniformed sons and daughter, upon command
from the likes of Trump and their political opportunists managing the country (Rep and Dem
alike). Serving and making America serve the Greater Zio Agenda for their ME and Global
domination has become the norm and unquestionable. Try raising this issue at a dinner party
and see how many people role their eyes and turn their heads away.
I doubt that the RU followers here, who seem more bent on street brawling with the false
bogeymen like BLM and ANTIFA, are the ones that will stand up to the in your face
take over of WDC by AIPAC and the Israel First Crowd, including front man Trump for the
Kushner-Bibi WH.
Let us not forget the thieving and scamming Sunday preachers who tell them it is great
to be in full service of the Zio (Jewish Talmudic based) domination agenda– as it has
become a direct ticket to a Raptured Heaven . Jesus for them was been thrown under
the bus long ago or strangely converted into a gun machine toting Israeli nut case
extremist settler, clearing the land and villages of the indignies children and
all.
Let us be frank, some elements of the America First Jewish intelligentsia are more
likely to call out and the whorishness ( extremes only) of the Washington's ZOG policies
than Middle Americana, who dare not risk their creature comforts, Game Time or corporate
positions.
As the old adage goes, you get the Government That You Deserve .
Are you all bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any
of you fucking pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!
Well your tribe has been incredibly effective at genocide and mass murder on an
unprecedented scale of barbarism in the past, and I have no doubt you remain just as
capable of such barbarity and cruelty today. Your rant makes that very clear.
Too bad the high IQ does not seem to correlate in a positive way with morality.
But thanks for the warning! Trust me, many of us are quite aware of your
capabilities.
The only reason Trump "spilled the beans" about how we are in the Middle East to protect
Israel and not to keep oil flowing is to get himself reelected and nothing else. As to war
with China, Zuckerberg alone would be able to bribe the administration in particular, and
both the parties in general, with his extra billions to keep them out of the war being that
he has married a chink, er, Chan. All will be back to business as usual after the election
at least, for four more years.
It means Netanyahu is the de facto president of the US.
Not quite. He is much more powerful than that. The entire Congress of the United States
stands and applauds when he arrives to speak. They would never do that for Trump, or any
president. The fear of being unpersoned keeps them in line.
@Ugetit
endence and freedom but things actually became more messy. Also the "hated" Russian
Romanovs were got rid off, Russia pushed under Communist Jewish dictatorship. Also the
destruction of the Caliph, imagine a united Turko-Arab Empire, no way Israel would have
survived that. Even T.E. Lawrence who helped the Arabs fight the Turks was totally
disappointed with the behaviour of his own Zionist controlled government. He was going to
speak to the British people about the great betrayal to the Arabs and being a war hero they
would have listened to him. But before he could do so he met with an "accident" while
riding his motorcycle. Yeah, very convenient.
@sethster
re good at gathering Nobel Prizes, which is best arranged by jury-rigging and
string-pulling thanks to their talent for networking, but no so good as making real
inventions. In Israel proper the mean Jewish IQ, 94, is not only disappointing but a few
points below even the Palestinian one. Spiritually the Jews have no longer been a chosen
people for ages and most of the intellectual development they knew from about 1850 onwards
was due to their being emancipated en masse from rabbinical authority, not by conforming to
it : now that are falling back under an even worse collective authority with Zionism they
are reversing the intellectual gains they once made.
Back in the second half of the 80s the big war games were all IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ!!1! There
was a strong push from all the interagency pukes with their dotted-lines reports to Langley
– to aim at Iraq, and to suppress any practical considerations that might interfere
with this very lucrative debacle. We watched these moles countering evidence and analysis
with declamatory bullshit they made up. Way back then CIA had decided. April Glaspie's
headfake sprung a trap set in Kuwait by the NOCs infesting Bechtel. That
horizontal-drilling rhubarb was years in preparation.
Iraq was one big war with three phases: beating up on the Iraqi armed forces; ten years
of blowing shit up; the occupation.
It turned out great. CIA got money-laundering nirvana, a chaotic zone where they could
ship pallets of money around. They got an arms entrepot that lasted 20 years.They got a
great network of sites for the torture gulag, with secure impunity – when Iraq tried
to accede to the Rome Statute in 05, the CIA torturers were on the spot to nip it in the
bud. The tame jihadi boogeymen the torture camps produced were invaluable in creating
Rumsfeld's "terrorist corridor" in the Sahel and justifying the P2OG and the Pan-Sahel
Initiative. That put AFRICOM garrisons, US-trained warlords, and CIA torture sites in one
of the most diplomatically recalcitrant regions of the world:
So turn that frown upside down! Your old bosses got a lot out of that charlie
foxtrot.
@sethster
re all conceived and started by Gentiles Henry Ford is a great example and he knew Jews
quite well. The only industries , as you call them, that Jews are involved in are
leech enterprises financial corporations are excellent examples of leech enterprises. The
financial products they contrive are methods to extract value from productive
industries.
A large percent of Jews are devoted obsessed with gaining wealth and power from the efforts
of others which is the reason for their inordinate involvement in the Deep State and also
for the abject loathing by many Gentiles throughout the ages.
Whether the truth is hidden or now out in the open doesn't matter to a people so stupid
as to believe the Creator's offspring walked, eat and crapped on this little planet 2k
years ago.
Exhibit B of their stupidity: Electing Trump (and more than a few of his
predecessors).
The NWO won't come to America as Greta Thunberg marching ahead of the Democrats in Mao
suits under LGBTQ and GND banners and tumbrels of Christians headed for the guillotine, but
as one transnational compliance regime after the other enacted by treaty, such as mandatory
bi-annual vaccinations with largely inefficacious vaccines carrying not just behavior
modifying chemicals and sterilants as adjuvants, but DNA-altering horrors. Anyone want to
argue the threats posed by these DNA- or mRNA-modifying vaccines made from, among other
things, insect DNA?
Some think it's over the top to talk about the NWO that's on the horizon as a
Sino-Judaic, world-hegemonic NWO, but the United States government is itself already little
more than a collection of compliance regimes in service to International Jewry. The 29
standing ovations from a Congress afraid to be the first to stop clapping for a kitchen
cabinet salesman-turned-Caesar made that clear enough. The rest of the story, like the
nonsense that Congress and DJT are voluntarily protecting Israel, is eyewash for
fools when International Jewry owns them all like the trained seals who perform in the
Central Park Zoo.
The Holy Rollers were never going to bail from Trump after the embassy move to
Jerusalem. Jews on the other hand are likely not amused about such a revelation. So his
words were unlikely about the election.
@lavoisier
nd stern conversation, "For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the
existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people." He's a brilliant intellectual
and a thoughtful politician, and we don't need to worry – he won't give up his
existential friendship so easily. And certainly not because of Bennett or his colleague
Orit Strock, the party whip.
A very symbolic photo posted by the Israel Defence Forces' Twitter account, in the tweet
linked to by user Talha
It is time to be more honest. A foreign war that the US loses may be the only way out of
the political, moral and social impasse that currently afflicts the US. The forces that
control the US government need to be removed and that seems increasingly unlikely to arise
from simply domestic opposition.
It took World War II to remove Adolf Hitler from power in Germany. Why should anyone
expect anything less to change the government of the United States? The US wants a war with
Russia and China. Perhaps it is best that it be granted one? Let's see some articles on this
proposition.
The odd thing is how so many Jews still support immigration despite the fact that a lot of
the immigrants are (from the Jewish/Zionist perspective) at best indifferent to Israel and at
worse outright hostile and want it gone.
Or perhaps they realise democracy is a sham and the Jewish elite have got their backs?
Hence their plans to mongrelise Europeans nations don't really conflict with their Zionist
ambitions.
One thing is for sure, when things start to get hairy in the West, all Jews will have a
nice First World ethnocracy to move to.
Trump's greatest contribution to the US/World might be exposing the naked ambition and
evilness of the Ziocons. Before Trump, Ziocons lurked in the background as puppet masters,
with their many plans obscured behind "diplomacy" and propaganda like "freedom" and "human
rights", now thanks to Trump they are showing their true colors. Trump has managed to expose
to the whole world including all our allies who is really running America and the extent they
will go to destroy their perceived "enemies" to achieve world domination -- the end justifies
the means. It is making our allies esp. Europe think twice about their alliance with
JU.S.A.
Trump's greatest contribution to the US/World might be exposing the naked ambition and
evilness of the Ziocons. Before Trump, Ziocons lurked in the background as puppet masters,
with their many plans obscured behind "diplomacy" and propaganda like "freedom" and "human
rights", now thanks to Trump they are showing their true colors. Trump has managed to expose
to the whole world including all our allies who is really running America and the extent they
will go to destroy their perceived "enemies" to achieve world domination -- the end justifies
the means. It is making our allies esp. Europe think twice about their alliance with
JU.S.A.
You must have been misinformed if you think that "Germany sold Israel submarines". Not
really as you can find out from the link bellow. The first two submarines were donated and
the third was "hawkered" for about half the production cost.
@anon
the empire starts WW3, e.g. the "big one" at Yellowstone, which will do so much damage as to
make it impossible for the evil empire to continue it's pursuit of world domination and
control.
I do think it is game over for quite a while in the West regarding opposition to Israel.
Israel may collapse or have to come to the table or something due to some game changer in the
Middle East, but I don't see it happening due to lack of support from the West anytime
soon.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
CFR Members And Bilderberg Attendees Appointed By Donald Trump (Taken from the CFR membership and Bilderberg participant lists)
Published: Wednesday, May 31, 2017
CFR Members And Bilderberg Attendees Appointed By Donald Trump
John P. Abizaid, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (Individual CFR member)
Elliott Abrams, Special Envoy on Venezuela (Individual CFR member)
James H. Baker, Director of the Office of Net Assessment (Bilderberg attendee)
Barbara Barrett, Secretary of the Air Force (Individual CFR member, Bilderberg attendee)
David Bohigian, Executive Vice President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (Individual CFR member)
John Bolton, National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member)
Dan R. Brouillette, Secretary of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Energy (Individual CFR member)
Elaine Chao, United States Secretary of Transportation (CFR Individual member)
Richard Clarida, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve (CFR Individual member)
Jay Clayton, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (CFR corporate member)
Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council (CFR corporate member)
Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary of Energy for Science, (Individual CFR member)
Jamie Dimon, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Jim Donovan, Deputy Treasury Secretary (CFR corporate member)
Mark T. Esper, Acting Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army (Individual CFR member, CFR corporate member)
Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (CFR fellow traveler
and frequent speaker)
Larry Fink, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Christopher A. Ford, Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation (Individual CFR member)
James S. Gilmore III, United States Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (Individual CFR
member)
Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member, Bilderberg attendee)
Neil M. Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice (Individual CFR member)
Harry B. Harris Jr., Ambassador to South Korea (Individual CFR member)
Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward, National Security Advisor (declined appointment) (CFR corporate member)
Kevin Hassett, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers (CFR fellow traveler)
Robert Wood "Woody" Johnson IV, United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom (Individual CFR member)
Kenneth I. Juster, Ambassador to India (Individual CFR member)
Robert Kadlec, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (Preparedness and Response), (Individual CFR member)
Lawrence Kudlow, Director of the National Economic Council (Individual CFR member)
Jared Kushner, Senior Advisor to the President (Bilderberg attendee)
Christopher Landau, Ambassador to Mexico (Individual CFR member)
Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative (Individual CFR member)
David R. Malpass, World Bank (Individual CFR member)
James Mattis, Secretary of Defense (Bilderberg attendee)
K.T. McFarland, Deputy National Security Adviser (Individual CFR member)
Brent McIntosh, Undersecretary for international affairs, Department of the Treasury and General Counsel of the Department
of the Treasury (Individual CFR member)
Linda McMahon, Administrator of the Small Business Administration (CFR corporate member)
Army Lt. General Herbert Raymond "H. R." McMaster, National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member, Bilderberg attendee)
Jim McNerney, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Steve Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury (CFR corporate member)
Justin G. Muzinich, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (Individual CFR member)
Denise Natali, Assistant Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations (Individual CFR member)
Indra Nooyi, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member, Bilderberg attendee)
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy (Bilderberg attendee)
Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (Bilderberg attendee)
Matthew Pottinger, Senior Director of the National Security Council (Bilderberg attendee)
Dina Powell, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy (CFR corporate member)
Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Individual CFR member)
Mira R. Ricardel, Deputy National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member)
Ginni Rometty, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
William B. Roper Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, Logistics (Individual CFR member)
Jeffrey A. Rosen, Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Deputy Attorney General (Individual CFR member)
Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce (Bilderberg attendee)
Anthony Scaramucci, Director of Communications (Individual CFR member)
Nadia Schadlow, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy (Bilderberg attendee)
Stephen Schwarzman, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Patrick Shanahan, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Defense (CFR corporate member)
Susan A. Thornton Assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs (Individual CFR member)
Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State (CFR corporate member)
Rick L. Waddell, National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member)
Elizabeth E. Walsh, Director General of the United States Commercial Service and Assistant Secretary of Commerce (Global Markets)
(Individual CFR member)
Ray Washburne, President and CEO of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (Individual CFR member)
Jack Welch, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Owen West, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (Individual CFR member)
Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Individual CFR member)
Heather Ann Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force (Individual CFR member)
"... Instead of reining in the "globalist elites" he so vociferously ran against or those corporations "who have no loyalty to America," his one legislative achievement has been to award them a massive tax cut. Through it, he has maintained their favorite mix of low revenue intake and high deficits which gives Republicans a pretext to "starve the beast" and induce fiscal anorexia. ..."
"... Trump ran as a populist firebrand -- a fusion of Huey Long and Ross Perot -- and while he never abandoned that style, he has governed for the most part as a milquetoast free market Republican in perfect tandem with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, one whose solution to everything is more tax cuts and deregulation: a kind of turbo-charged "high-energy Jeb." ..."
"... With the outbreak of COVID-19, many on the reformist right are hoping for the emergence of the President Trump they thought they were promised, a leader just as ready to break out of the donor-enforced "small government" straitjacket while in power as he was during the campaign. ..."
"... The heightened rhetoric against China will continue -- the one thing Trump is good at -- but it is unlikely to be matched with the required policy ..."
"... If neoliberalism excused inequality at home by extolling the equalization of incomes across the globe (millions of Chinese raised from poverty, while millions of American workers fall back into it!), the new position must shift emphasis back to ensuring a more equitable domestic distribution of wealth and opportunity across all classes and communities in this country. ..."
"... It is worth pondering what might have happened if the administration had gone the other way and followed the last piece of policy advice given by Steve Bannon before his ouster in August 2017. Bannon suggested raising the top marginal income tax rate to 44 percent while "arguing that it would actually hit left-wing millionaires in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street, and in Hollywood." ..."
"... It might well have put Trump on the path to becoming what Daniel Patrick Moynihan once proposed as a model for Richard Nixon when he gifted the 37th president a biography of Disraeli, namely a Tory Republican who could outsmart the left by crafting broad popular coalitions based on a blending of patriotic cultural conservatism with class-conscious economic and social policy. ..."
"... Then and even more so now, the idea resonates: a Reuters/Ipsos poll from January found that 64 percent of Americans support a wealth tax, a majority of Republicans included. Poll after poll has reaffirmed this. It seems as if there is right-wing populist support for taxing the rich more. ..."
"... There is one more thing to be said about the significance of taxing the rich. Up until very recently, there has been a prevailing tendency among the reformist right (with some important exceptions) to couch criticism of the elites primarily or even exclusively in cultural terms. There seems to have been a polite hesitation at taking the cultural critique to its logical economic conclusions. It is easy to excoriate the excesses of elite identity politics, the "woke" part of woke capitalism; it's something all conservatives -- and indeed growing numbers of liberals and socialists -- agree on. Fish in a barrel. ..."
"... But to challenge the capitalism part, i.e. free market orthodoxy, not in a secondary or tertiary way, but head on and in specific policy terms as Lofgren and a few others have done, would involve confronting difficult truths, namely that the biggest beneficiaries of tax cuts and Reaganite economic policy in general, which most conservatives enthusiastically promoted for four decades, are the selfsame decadent coastal elites they claim to oppose. It is they who more than anyone else thrive on financialized globalization, arbitrage and offshoring. ..."
"... In other words, it amounts to an honest recognition of the complicity of conservatism in the mess we're in, which is perhaps a psychological bridge too far for too many on the right, reformist or not. (Trigger Warning!) This separation of culture and economics has led to the farce of a self-styled nationalist president lining the pockets of his nominal enemies, the globalist ruling class. ..."
"... A conservative call to tax the rich would signal that the right is ready to end this charade and chart a course toward a more patriotic, public-spirited and yes, proudly hyphenated capitalism. ..."
"... Michael Cuenco is a writer on politics and policy. He has also written for American Affairs. ..."
They also left worker wages stagnant and increased the deficit. Where is our more nationalist economic policy?
Much has been written about the disappointment of certain segments of the right in the apparent capitulation of Donald Trump to
the agenda of the conservative establishment.
Instead of reining in the "globalist elites" he so vociferously ran against or those corporations "who have no loyalty to America,"
his one legislative achievement has been to award them a massive tax cut. Through it, he has maintained their favorite mix of low
revenue intake and high deficits which gives Republicans a pretext to "starve the beast" and induce fiscal anorexia.
The president has granted them as well their ideal labor market through an ingenious formula: double down on mostly symbolic raids
(as opposed to systemic solutions like Mandatory E-Verify) and ramp up the rhetoric about "shithole countries" to distract the media,
but keep the supply of cheap, exploitable low-skill labor (legal and illegal) intact for the business lobby.
Trump ran as a populist firebrand -- a fusion of Huey Long and Ross Perot -- and while he never abandoned that style, he has governed
for the most part as a milquetoast free market Republican in perfect tandem with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, one whose solution
to everything is more tax cuts and deregulation: a kind of turbo-charged "high-energy Jeb."
With the outbreak of COVID-19, many on the reformist right are hoping for the emergence of the President Trump they thought they
were promised, a leader just as ready to break out of the donor-enforced "small government" straitjacket while in power as he was
during the campaign.
Despite signs of progress, what's more likely is a return to business as usual. Already the GOP's impulse for austerity and parsimony
is proving to be stronger than any willingness to think and act outside the box.
The heightened rhetoric against China will continue -- the one thing Trump is good at -- but it is unlikely to be matched with
the required policy, such as a long-term plan to reshore U.S. industry (that doesn't just rely on blindly giving corporations the
benefit of the doubt). At this point, we already know where the president's priorities lie when given a choice between the advancement
of America's workers or continued labor arbitrage and carte blanche corporate handouts.
Lest they be engulfed by it like everyone else, the reformist right should ask: is there any way to stand athwart the supply-side
swamp yelling Stop?
Many of these conservatives lament the Trump tax cut not just because it was a disaster that failed to spark reinvestment, left
wages stagnant, needlessly blew up the deficit and served as a slush fund for stock buybacks, but more fundamentally because it betrayed
the overwhelming intellectual inertia and lack of imagination that characterizes conservative policymaking.
More than in any other issue then, a distinct position on taxes would make the new conservatism truly worth distinguishing from
the old: tax cuts were after all the defining policy dogma of the neoliberal Reagan era.
If neoliberalism excused inequality at home by extolling the equalization of incomes across the globe (millions of Chinese raised
from poverty, while millions of American workers fall back into it!), the new position must shift emphasis back to ensuring a more
equitable domestic distribution of wealth and opportunity across all classes and communities in this country.
A reformulation of fiscal policy along populist economic nationalist lines can help with that.
It is worth pondering what might have happened if the administration had gone the other way and followed the last piece of policy
advice given by Steve Bannon before his ouster in August 2017. Bannon suggested raising the top marginal income tax rate to 44 percent
while "arguing that it would actually hit left-wing millionaires in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street, and in Hollywood."
Such a move would have been nothing short of revolutionary: it would have been a faithful and full-blown expression of the populist
economic nationalism Trump ran on; it would have presented a genuine material threat to the elite ruling class of both parties, and
likely would have pre-empted the shock value of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposing a 70 percent top marginal rate.
It might well have put Trump on the path to becoming what Daniel Patrick Moynihan once proposed as a model for Richard Nixon when
he gifted the 37th president a biography of Disraeli, namely a Tory Republican who could outsmart the left by crafting broad popular
coalitions based on a blending of patriotic cultural conservatism with class-conscious economic and social policy.
Not that Trump would have needed to go back to Nixon or Disraeli for instruction on the matter. In 1999, long before Elizabeth
Warren came along on the national scene, a presidential candidate eyeing the Reform Party nomination contemplated the imposition
of a 14.25 percent wealth tax on America's richest citizens in order to pay off the national debt: his name was Donald Trump.
What ever happened to that guy? The Trump of 1999 was onto something. Maybe this could be a way to deal with our post-pandemic
deficits.
Then and even more so now, the idea resonates: a Reuters/Ipsos poll from January found that 64 percent of Americans support a
wealth tax, a majority of Republicans included. Poll after poll has reaffirmed this. It seems as if there is right-wing populist
support for taxing the rich more.
To the common refrain, "the rich are just going to find ways to shelter their income or relocate it offshore," I have written
elsewhere about the concrete policy measures countries can and have taken to clip the wings of mobile global capital and prevent
such an outcome.
I have written as well about how taxing the rich and tightening the screws on tax enforcement have implications that go beyond
the merely redistributive approach to fiscal policy conventionally favored by the left; about how it can be a form of leverage against
an unaccountable investor class used to shopping at home and abroad for the most opaque assets in which to hoard vast amounts of
essentially idle capital.
A deft administration would use aggressive fiscal policy as an inducement for this irresponsible class to make things right by
reinvesting in such priorities as the wages and well-being of workers, the vitality of communities, the strength of strategic industries
and the productivity of the real economy – or else Uncle Sam will tax their wealth and do it for them.
It would also be an assertion of national sovereignty against globalization's command for countries to stay "competitive" by immiserating
their citizens with ever-lower taxes on capital holders and ever more loose and "flexible" labor markets in a never-ending race to
the bottom.
Mike Lofgren has penned a marvelous essay in these pages about the virtual secession of the rich from the American nation, "with
their prehensile greed, their asocial cultural values, and their absence of civic responsibility."
What better way to remind them that they are still citizens of a country and members of a society -- and not just floating streams
of deracinated capital -- than by making them perform that most basic of civic duties, paying one's fair share and contributing to
the commonweal? America need not revert to the 70-90 percent top marginal rates of the bolshevik administrations of Truman, Eisenhower
or Kennedy, but proposals for modest moves in that direction would be welcome.
There is one more thing to be said about the significance of taxing the rich. Up until very recently, there has been a prevailing
tendency among the reformist right (with some important exceptions) to couch criticism of the elites primarily or even exclusively
in cultural terms. There seems to have been a polite hesitation at taking the cultural critique to its logical economic conclusions.
It is easy to excoriate the excesses of elite identity politics, the "woke" part of woke capitalism; it's something all conservatives
-- and indeed growing numbers of liberals and socialists -- agree on. Fish in a barrel.
But to challenge the capitalism part, i.e. free market orthodoxy, not in a secondary or tertiary way, but head on and in specific
policy terms as Lofgren and a few others have done, would involve confronting difficult truths, namely that the biggest beneficiaries
of tax cuts and Reaganite economic policy in general, which most conservatives enthusiastically promoted for four decades, are the
selfsame decadent coastal elites they claim to oppose. It is they who more than anyone else thrive on financialized globalization,
arbitrage and offshoring.
In other words, it amounts to an honest recognition of the complicity of conservatism in the mess we're in, which is perhaps
a psychological bridge too far for too many on the right, reformist or not. (Trigger Warning!) This separation of culture and economics
has led to the farce of a self-styled nationalist president lining the pockets of his nominal enemies, the globalist ruling class.
Already, the White House is proposing yet another gigantic corporate tax cut. Using the exact same discredited logic as the last
one, senior economic advisor Larry Kudlow wants Americans to trust him when he says that halving the already lowered 2017 rate to
10.5 percent will encourage these eminently reasonable multinationals to reinvest. There he goes again.
A conservative call to tax the rich would signal that the right is ready to end this charade and chart a course toward a more
patriotic, public-spirited and yes, proudly hyphenated capitalism.
Michael Cuenco is a writer on politics and policy. He has also written for American Affairs.
"America need not revert to the 70-90 percent top marginal rates of the bolshevik administrations of Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy,
but proposals for modest moves in that direction would be welcome."
Those tax rates were offset by direct investment in the US economy. So if I invested in the stock market, I'd get a 90% tax
rate because that doesn't produce actual wealth. On the other hand, if I invested in building factories that created thousands
of jobs for American citizens, my tax rate may fall to 0%. And those policies created a fantastic economy that we oldsters remember
as the golden age. That wasn't bolshevism, it was competitive capitalism. What we have today is libertarianism. And as long as
conservatives are going to let the libertarian boogey-man's nose under the tent, we are going to have this ugly, bifurcated economy.
Your choice. Man up.
You ever tell hear of sarcasm, bud? I think that's what the author was going for. Don't think he was trying to say that Ike and
Truman were Bolsheviks but was rather making fun of libertarians who hyperbolically associate high tax rates with socialism and
Soviet Communism...
We absolutely do not have libertarianism operating in this country today. There is simply no evidence that there is any
sort of libertarian economic or political system in place. Oh sure, you'll whine "but globalism without actually defining
what globalism is, or what is wrong about precisely, but just that it's somehow wrong and that libertarians are to blame for it.
There's a good word for such an argument: bullshit.
We have an economy that is extraordinarily dominated by the state via mandates, regulations, and monetary interference that is
most decidedly not libertarian in any way whatsoever. The current system though does create and perpetuate a system of
rent-seeking cronies who conform rather nicely to the descriptions of said actors by Buchanan and Tullock. The problems of the
modern economy are the result of state interference, not its absence, and Cuenco's sorry policy prescriptions do nothing to minimize
the state but instead just create a different set of rent-seeking cronies for which the wealth and incomes of the nation are to
be expropriated.
If you can point to how the current situation is in any way "libertarian" without creating your own perfect little lazy straw
man definition then by all means do so. Until then your retort is without
substance (you see a no true Scotsman reply doesn't work if the facts are in the favor of the person supposedly making such an
argument. Here you fail to establish why what I said is such a case; saying it doesn't make it so). When Kent makes some throwaway
comment that we're somehow living in some sort of libertarian era he's full of it, you know it, and all you can do is provide
some weak "no true Scotsman" defense? Come on and man up, stop appealing to artificial complaints of fallacious argumentation,
and give me an actual solid argument with evidence beyond "this is so libertarian" that we're living in some libertarian golden
age that's driving the oppression of the masses.
Busted unions, contracting out and privatization, deregulation of vast swaths of the economy since the late 1970's (Jimmy Carter
has gotten kudos from libertarian writers for his de-regulatory efforts), lowered tax rates, especially on financial speculation
and concentrated wealth, a blind eye or shrugged shoulder to anti-trust law and corporate consolidation. Yeah, nothing to see
here, no partial victories for the libertarian wings of the ruling class or the GOP, at all. The Koch Brothers accomplished nothing,
absolutely nothing, since David was the Libertarian Party's nominee for Vice President in 1980; all that money gone to waste.
Sure.
So, now some sort of "partial victory" means we're living in some sort of libertarian era? And what exactly was so wonderful about
all the things you listed being perpetuated? So, union "busting" is terrible, but union corruption was a great part of our national
solidarity and should have been protected? Deregulation of vast swathes of the economy? You mean the elimination of government
controlled cartels in the form of trucking and airlines? You mean the sorts of things that have enabled the working class folks
you supposedly favor to travel to places that were previously out of reach for them and only accessible to the rich for their
vacations? Yes, that's truly terrible. Again, you're on the side of the little guy, right? Lowered taxes? Are you seriously going
to argue that the traditional conservative position has been for high tax rates? What are taxes placed upon? People and property.
What do conservatives want to protect? People and property. So... arguing for higher taxes or saying that low taxes are bad or
even especially, libertarian, is really going off the rails. That's just bad reasoning. And regarding financialization, those
weren't especially libertarian in their enacting, but rather flow directly out of the consequences of the modern Progressive implementation
of neo-Keynesian monetary and fiscal policy. Suffice it to say, I don't think you'll find too many arguments from libertarians
that the policies encouraging financialization were good or followed libertarian economic policy prescriptions. Moreover, they
led entirely to the repulsive "too big to fail" situation and if there's one thing that libertarians hold to is that there is
no such thing (or shouldn't be) as "too big to fail." The objection to anti-trust law is that it was regularly abused and actually
created government-protected firms that harmed consumers. If you think anti-trust laws are good things and should be supported
by conservatives then by all means encourage Joe Biden to have Elizabeth Warren as his vice-presidential running mate and go vote
Democrat this fall.
"The problems of the modern economy are the result of state interference, not its absence". That's because the "state interference"
is working as proxy for the interests of vulture capitalist.
What we have today is vulture capitalism as opposed to free enterprise capitalism.
Exactly. The existence of a vulture capitalist or crony capitalist economy, which we have in many sectors, is evidence that "libertarianism"
is nothing more than a convenient totem to invoke as a rationale for complaint against the outcomes of the existing crony capitalist
state of affairs. My contention is that Cuenco, et al are simply advocating for a replacement of the cronies and vultures.
A very similar article(but probably coming at it from a slightly different angle) wouldn't look out of place in a socialist publication.
The culture war really is a pointless waste of time that keeps working class people from working towards a common solution to
shared problems.
I used to think that conservatism was about protecting private property and not, like Cuenco, in coming up with ever more excuses
for expropriating it.
No, that's libertarianism (or more properly propertarianism). Conservatism is first and foremost about responsibility to God,
community, family and self. Property is only of value in its utility towards a means.
As I see it, here are examples of how "conservatives" have actually practiced their "responsibility to God, community, family
and self":
The genocide of Native Americans
The slavery and murder of blacks
Their opposition to child labor laws, to womens' suffrage, etc.
Their support of Jim Crow laws
Their opposition to ending slavery and opposition to desegregation
Opposition to Civil Liberties Laws
Willingness to block, or curtail, voting rights.
Hyping the "imminent threat" of an ever more powerful communist menace bearing
down on us from the late 40s to the "unanticipated" collapse of the
USSR in '91. All of which was little more than endless "threat inflation" used
by our defense industry-corporate kleptocrats to justify monstrous increases
in deficits that have been "invested" in our meddlesome, murderous militarism all around the world, with the torture and deaths
of millions from S. E. Asia, to Indonesia, to Latin America, to the Middle East, to Africa, etc.
Violations of privacy rights (conservative hero J. Edgar Hoover's illegal domestic surveillance and acts of domestic terrorism,
"justified" by
his loopy paranoia about commies on every corner and under every bed.)
Toppling of democracies to install totalitarian despots in Iran
("Ike" '53), Guatemala (Ike, again, '54), Chile (Nixon '73), Brazil (LBJ, '64) and many, many more countries.
Strong support of the Vietnam War, the wars in Laos and Cambodia, and the Iraq War, which, according to conservative W. Bush,
God had inspired.
The myriad "dirty wars" we've fought around the world, and not only in Latin America.
With a few, notable exceptions, conservatives have routinely been on the wrong side of these issues. For the most part, it
has been the left, particularly the "hard left," that has gotten it right.
So conservatism should be entirely about taking people's property "for the good of the country"? That the purpose of a country
is to loot the people? That the people exist for the government and not the government for the people? Seems Edmund Burke and
Russell Kirk would like to have a word with you Adm.
To quote Kirk as just one example of your fundamental error:
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked . [Apparently, Adm. you dispute
Kirk's assertion and accuse him thereby of conflating libertarianism and conservatism. Yes, I know Kirk was a hater of the
idea of patriotism, but he was such a raging libertarian what else could he do?] Separate property from private possession,
and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread
is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling[this
is the outcome of Cuenco's policy prescriptions by the way] , conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting
and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth
is much to be desired.
So, either "Mr. Conservative" Russell Kirk wasn't really a conservative but a man who horribly conflated libertarianism and
conservatism, or we can say that Kirk was a conservative and that he recognized the protection of private property as crucial
in minimizing the control and reach of the Leviathan state. If the latter holds, then maybe what we've established is that AdmBenson
isn't particularly conservative.
"The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth." This status quo
has produced precisely the opposite of this. Wealth, assets, capital has been captured by the elite. The pitchforks are coming.
See this CBO chart:
View Hide
Conservatives accept taxes as a part of citizenship. Since taxes can't be avoided, a conservative insists on democratic representation
and has a general desire to get maximum bang for their taxpayer buck.
Libertarians, on the other hand, see everything through the lens of an individual's property rights. Taxes and regulation are
infringements on those rights, so a libertarian is always at war with their own government. They're not interested in bang for
their taxpayer buck, they just want the government to go away. I can't fault people for believing this way, but I can point out
that it is severely faulty as the operating philosophy beyond anything but a small community.
As for me not being particularly conservative, ya got me. It really depends on time of day and the level of sunspot activity.
I should have put the /s on my reply, but your response did give me a good chuckle. Besides, for that finger pointing at you,
there were three more pointing back at me.
And somehow people continually fall for the Trickle Down economic theory. George HW Bush was correct when he called this VooDoo
economics. Fiscal irresponsibility at it's finest.
Nah people don't fall for it, republicans do. The rest of us know this stuff doesn't work. We didn't need an additional datapoint
to realize that. The Tax Cuts and Jobs act was the single most unpopular piece of legislation to ever pass since polling began.
It never had support outside of the Republican Party which is why it's never had majority support.
John Kenneth Galbraith called Trickle Down "economics", "Oats and Horse Economics". If you feed the horse a lot of oats, eventually
some be left on the road...
Mitch is fully owned by Trump as is every republican that holds office except Romney. Mitch can't go to the bathroom with out
asking Trumps permission.
Mitch is owned by corporations and he likes it that way. He basically says as much whenever campaign finance reform pops up and
he defends the status quo.
Yep. The guy who declared war on the Tea Party. The guy who changed his tune entirely about China when he married into the family
of a shipping magnate.
I'm eagerly awaiting a GOP plan for economic restructuring. I've been waiting for decade(s). Surely there is someone in the entire
body of think tanks, congressional staffers, and political class that can propose a genuine and comprehensive plan for how to
rebalance production, education, and technology for the better of ALL Americans. Surely...
I honestly wonder if Jack Kemp might have had a "Road to Damascus" conversion away from his pseudo-libertarian and supply side
economic convictions if he had lived through the decade after the Great Recession. Probably not, given his political and economic
activity up until his death.
Trump pushed the tax cut because it saves him at least $20 million each year in taxes, probably closer to $50 million. That's
the only reason he does anything, because he benefits personally.
Thank you very much for posting the link to the wonderful essay by Mike Lofgren. Written 8 years ago it feels even more actual
than then. I have bookmarked it for future reference.
Looking at the US it always comes to my mind the way Rome and then Byzantium fell: a total erosion of the tax-base the rich
refused to pay anything to the imperial coffers, and then some of the rich had land bigger than some modern countries... And then
the barbarians came...
Lofgren: "What I mean by secession is a withdrawal into enclaves, an internal immigration, whereby the rich disconnect themselves
from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place to extract loot."
That was in 2012, but that was what struck me about my well-to-do classmates
when I transferred from Cal State Long Beach to Columbia University in 1977 . Suddenly I was among people who saw America,
American laws, and a shared sense of civic responsibility as quaint, bothersome, rather tangential to the project of promoting
oneself and/or one's special interest.
The only way that factories would come back is when Americans start buying made in America. We can't wait for ANY government to
bring those factories and jobs ( and technology) . Only people voting with their pocketbooks can do it.
Still waiting for the day the first American asks "What have WE done wrong?" Rather than just following in Trumps step
and playing the victim card every step of the way and wondering why nothing gets better.
@Al
Lipton He strikes me as just another leader out for his own self image, and legacy. I
took this opinion given his foreign policy – the shows for his isolationist base, and
his continuous almost wars for the MIC. I do say almost wars, and that says something. We're
I a US citizen, and one to vote for humans, I would vote for Trump this time, but he is
imperfect imo, and it's only a coincidence that on some issues what benefits him, aligns with
what benefits the nation.
The timing of ObamaGate for example – we all knew it, it would go from snail's pace
to a decent speed just as the election cycle was heating up. But this is playing politics and
electioneering with the most critical misdirection and criminality of US officials in a long
time. A real leader who worked for the nation and its Constitution only, would bugger all
that and start draining as soon as could be done.
Of course that could be coincidence, and they could have been building a strong case, but
as someone else said, I will take my conspiracy theory over some coincidence theory any
day.
I can't imagine that without ObamaGate, he would have even tried to drain the swamp. Made
showpieces of it sure, but no thing major. But now he can do what he promised and maybe even
wanted to do, without reputational damage, and he will do it.
But how he will be in his second term, through a depression that was on its way in 6
months before corona? Like FDR I'd guess – war war war.
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time
this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry
into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell
admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing
Russians and Iranians covertly" ).
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to
Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His
comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :
Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James
Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan.
This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the
Russians."
He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as
part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in
exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus.
As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of
Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria -
international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of
government."
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery
He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding,
reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh
But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all
along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and
amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's
real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300
into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).
As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock
in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops
"securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.
* * *
Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in
Syria:
R ussia and Saudi Arabia are engaged in an oil price war that has sent shockwaves around
the world, causing the price of oil to tumble and threatening the financial stability, and even
viability, of major international oil companies.
On the surface, this conflict appears to be a fight between two of the world's largest
producers of oil over market share. This may, in fact, be the motive driving Saudi Arabia,
which reacted to Russia's refusal to reduce its level of oil production by slashing the price
it charged per barrel of oil and threatening to increase its oil production, thereby flooding
the global market with cheap oil in an effort to attract customers away from competitors.
Russia's motives appear to be far different -- its target isn't Saudi Arabia, but rather
American shale oil. After absorbing American sanctions that targeted the Russian energy sector,
and working with global partners (including Saudi Arabia) to keep oil prices stable by reducing
oil production even as the United States increased the amount of shale oil it sold on the world
market, Russia had had enough. The advent of the Coronavirus global pandemic had significantly
reduced the demand for oil around the world, stressing the American shale producers.
Russia had been preparing for the eventuality of oil-based economic warfare with the United
States. With U.S. shale producers knocked back on their heels, Russia viewed the time as being
ripe to strike back. Russia's goal is simple: to make American shale oil producers "
share the pain ".
The United States has been slapping sanctions on Russia for more
than six years, ever since Russia took control (and later annexed) the Crimean Peninsula and
threw its weight behind Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The first sanctions were issued
on March 6, 2014, through Executive
Order 13660 , targeting "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean
region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine that undermine democratic
processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty,
and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets."
The most
recent round of sanctions was announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on February 18,
2020, by sanctioning Rosneft Trading S.A., a Swiss-incorporated, Russian-owned oil brokerage
firm, for operating in Venezuela's oil sector. The U.S. also recently targeted the Russian
Nord Stream 2
and
Turk Stream gas pipeline projects.
Russia had been signaling its displeasure over U.S. sanctions from the very beginning. In
July 2014, Russian President Vladimir
Putin warned that U.S. sanctions were "driving into a corner" relations between the two
countries, threatening the "the long-term national interests of the U.S. government and
people." Russia opted to ride out U.S. sanctions, in hopes that there might be a change of
administrations following the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. Russian President Vladimir
Putin made it clear that he hoped the U.S. might elect someone whose policies would be more
friendly toward Russia, and that once the field of candidates narrowed down to a choice between
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Putin favored
Trump .
"Yes, I did," Putin remarked after the election, during a joint press conference with
President Trump following a summit in Helsinki in July 2018. "Yes, I did. Because he talked
about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."
Putin's comments only reinforced the opinions of those who embraced allegations of Russian
interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election as fact and concluded that Putin had some
sort of hold over Trump. Trump's continuous praise of Putin's leadership style only reinforced
these concerns.
Even before he was inaugurated, Trump singled out Putin's refusal to respond in kind to
President Obama's levying of sanctions based upon the assessment of the U.S. intelligence
community that Russia had interfered in the election. "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)
– I always knew he was very smart!"
Trump Tweeted . Trump viewed the Obama sanctions as an effort
to sabotage any chance of a Trump administration repairing relations with Russia, and
interpreted Putin's refusal to engage, despite being pressured to do so by the Russian
Parliament and Foreign Ministry, as a recognition of the same.
This sense of providing political space in the face of domestic pressure worked both ways.
In January 2018, Putin tried to shield his relationship with President Trump by calling the
release of a list containing some 200 names of persons close to the Russian government by the
U.S. Treasury Department as a hostile and "stupid"
move .
"Ordinary Russian citizens, employees and entire industries are behind each of those people
and companies," Putin remarked. "So all 146 million people have essentially been put on this
list. What is the point of this? I don't understand."
From the Russian perspective, the list highlighted the reality that the U.S. viewed the
entire Russian government as an enemy and is a byproduct of the "political paranoia" on the
part of U.S. lawmakers. The consequences of this, senior Russian officials warned, "will be
toxic and undermine prospects for cooperation for years ahead."
While President Trump entered office fully intending to "
get along with Russia ," including the possibility of
relaxing the Obama-era sanctions , the reality of U.S.-Russian relations, especially as
viewed from Congress, has been the strengthening of the Obama sanctions regime. These
sanctions, strengthened over time by new measures signed off by Trump, have had a negative
impact on the Russian economy,
slowing growth and
driving away foreign investment .
While Putin continued to show constraint in the face of these mounting sanctions, the recent
targeting of Russia's energy sector represented a bridge too far. When Saudi pressure to cut
oil production rates coincided with a global reduction in the demand for oil brought on by the
Coronavirus crisis, Russia struck.
The timing of the Russian action is curious, especially given the amount of speculation that
there was some sort of personal relationship between Trump and Putin that the Russian leader
sought to preserve and carry over into a potential second term. But Putin had, for some
time now, been signaling that his patience with Trump had run its course. When speaking to
the press in June 2019 about the state of U.S.-Russian relations, Putin noted that "They
(our relations) are going downhill, they are getting worse and worse," adding that "The current
[i.e., Trump] administration has approved, in my opinion, several dozen decisions on sanctions
against Russia in recent years."
By launching an oil price war on the eve of the American Presidential campaign season, Putin
has sent as strong a signal as possible that he no longer views Trump as an asset, if in fact
he ever did. Putin had hoped Trump could usher in positive change in the trajectory of
relations between the two nations; this clearly had not happened. Instead, in the words of
close Putin ally Igor Sechin , the chief executive of Russian oil giant Rosneft, the U.S.
was using its considerable energy resources as a political weapon, ushering in an era of "power
colonialism" that sought to expand U.S. oil production and market share at the expense of other
nations.
From Russia's perspective, the growth in U.S. oil production -- which doubled in output from
2011 until 2019 -- and the emergence of the U.S. as a net exporter of oil, was directly linked
to the suppression of oil export capability in nations such as Venezuela and Iran through the
imposition of sanctions. While this could be tolerated when the target was a third party, once
the U.S. set its sanctioning practices on Russian energy, the die was cast.
If the goal of the Russian-driven price war is to make U.S. shale companies "share the
pain," they have already succeeded. A similar price war, initiated by Saudi Arabia in 2014 for
the express purpose of suppressing U.S. shale oil production, failed, but only because
investors were willing to prop up the stricken shale producers with massive loans and infusion
of capital. For shale oil producers, who use an expensive methodology of extraction known as
"fracking," to be economically viable, the breakeven price of oil
per barrel needs to be between $40 and $60 dollars. This was the price range the Saudi's
were hoping to sustain when they proposed the cuts in oil production that Russia rejected.
The U.S. shale oil producers, saddled by massive debt and high operational expenses, will
suffer greatly in any sustained oil price war. Already, with the price of oil down to below $35
per barrel,
there is talk of bankruptcy and massive job layoffs -- none of which bode well for Trump in
the coming election.
It's clear that Russia has no intention of backing off anytime soon. According to
the Russian Finance Ministry , said on Russia could weather oil prices of $25-30 per barrel
for between six and ten years. One thing is for certain -- U.S. shale oil companies cannot.
In a sign that the Trump administration might be waking up to the reality of the predicament
it faces, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin quietly met with Russia's Ambassador to the U.S.,
Anatoly Antonov. According to a read out from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the two discussed economic sanctions, the Venezuelan economy, and the potential for "trade
and investment." Mnuchin, the Russians noted, emphasized the "importance of orderly energy
markets."
Russia is unlikely to fold anytime soon. As Admiral Josh Painter, a character in Tom
Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," famously said , "Russians don't take a dump without
a plan."
Russia didn't enter its current course of action on a whim. Its goals are clearly stated --
to defeat U.S. shale oil -- and the costs of this effort, both economically and politically (up
to and including having Trump lose the 2020 Presidential election) have all been calculated and
considered in advance. The Russian Bear can only be toyed with for so long without generating a
response. We now know what that response is; when the Empire strikes back, it hits hard.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books,
including his forthcoming, Scorpion King:
America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump (2020).
Looks like Trump is already lame duck President. And this will not change with the
elections
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not suggesting that President Trump deserves a second term. He didn't deserve a first one. He's a terrible person and an awful president. What I'm saying is that it is more likely than not that he has already done most of the damage that he can do. ..."
"... An achievement-filled second term would be a major reversal of recent historical precedent. Things may get worse under four more years of this idiot, but not much worse as the Democratic doomsday cult warns. ..."
"... I hope Obama enjoyed all those trips to Martha's Vineyard because that's pretty much all he has to show for term number two. ..."
"... George W. Bush screwed up one thing after another during his second four years in office, which was bookended by his hapless non-response to the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina and his role in the ineffective and wasteful bailout of Wall Street megabanks during the subprime mortgage financial crisis. What began as an illegal war of aggression against Iraq became, after reelection, a catastrophic quagmire that destroyed America's international reputation. ..."
"... Reagan was both senile and bogged down in Iran Contra. ..."
"... "If Trump wins a second term this November," James Pethokoukis writes in The Week, Trump "might propose more tax cuts, but they are more likely to be payroll tax cuts geared toward middle-class workers instead of income tax cuts for rich people and corporations. ..."
You've heard it so often that you may well believe it's true: Trump's second term would be a
disaster. For the Democratic Party. For the United States. For democracy itself. "The
reelection of Donald Trump," warns Nancy Pelosi, "would do irreparable damage to the United
States."
But would it really?
Exceptions are a normal part of history but the record suggests that Trump would not be one
of the few presidents who get much done during their second terms. There are three reasons for
the sophomore slump:
By definition, political honeymoons expire (well) before the end of a president's first
term. Elections have consequences in the form of policy changes that make good on campaign
promises. But turning a pledge into reality comes at a cost. Capital gets spent, promises are
broken, alliances shatter. Oftentimes, those changes prove disappointing. Recent example:
Obamacare. Voters often express their displeasure by punishing the party that controls the
White House with losses in Congress in midterm elections.
The permanent campaign fed by the 24-7 news cycle makes lame ducks gimpier than ever. Before
a president gets to take his or her second oath of office, news media and future hopefuls are
already looking four years ahead.
Scandals come usually home to roost during second terms. It's tough to push laws through a
Congress that is dragging your top officials through one investigation after another.
I'm not suggesting that President Trump deserves a second term. He didn't deserve a
first one. He's a terrible person and an awful president. What I'm saying is that it is more
likely than not that he has already done most of the damage that he can do.
Pundits and Democratic politicians have been pushing a self-serving narrative that implies
that everything Trump has done so far was merely a warm-up for the main event, that he would
want and be able to go even further if given the chance if November 2020 goes his way.
That doesn't make sense. Who in their right mind thinks Trump has been holding anything
back? Which president has failed to go big within a year or two?
An achievement-filled second term would be a major reversal of recent historical
precedent. Things may get worse under four more years of this idiot, but not much worse as the
Democratic doomsday cult warns.
President Obama didn't get much done during his second term, which began with the bungled
rollout of the federal and state "health exchanges." He signed the Paris climate accord,
renewed diplomatic relations with Cuba and negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran. But the ease
with which his successor canceled those achievements showcased both the ephemerality of
policies pushed through without thorough public propaganda and a general sense that second-term
laws and treaties are easy to annul. I hope Obama enjoyed all those trips to Martha's
Vineyard because that's pretty much all he has to show for term number two.
George W. Bush screwed up one thing after another during his second four years in
office, which was bookended by his hapless non-response to the destruction of New Orleans by
Hurricane Katrina and his role in the ineffective and wasteful bailout of Wall Street megabanks
during the subprime mortgage financial crisis. What began as an illegal war of aggression
against Iraq became, after reelection, a catastrophic quagmire that destroyed America's
international reputation.
Whatever the merits of Bill Clinton's legislative and policy agenda -- welfare reform, NAFTA
and bombing Kosovo would all have happened under a Republican president -- having anything
substantial or positive to point to was well in the rearview mirror by his second term, when he
found himself embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky affair and impeachment.
Reagan was both senile and bogged down in Iran Contra.
Even the most productive and prolific president of the 20th century had little to show for
his second term. FDR's legacy would be nearly as impressive today if he'd only served four
years.
Anything could happen. Donald Trump may use his second term to push dramatic changes. If
there were another terrorist attack, for example, he would probably try to exploit national
shock and fear to the political advantage of the right. Another Supreme Court justice could
pass away. On the other hand, Trump is old, clinically obese and out of shape. He might die.
It's doubtful that Mike Pence, a veep chosen for his lack of charisma, would be able to carry
on the Trump tradition as more than the head of a caretaker government.
Analysts differ on what Trump 2.0 might look like. Regardless of their perspective, however,
no one expects anything big.
"If Trump wins a second term this November," James Pethokoukis writes in The Week, Trump
"might propose more tax cuts, but they are more likely to be payroll tax cuts geared toward
middle-class workers instead of income tax cuts for rich people and corporations. He'll
look for a new Federal Reserve chair less worried about inflation than current boss Jerome
Powell, who deserves at least partial credit for the surging stock market and continuing
expansion. Trump will let the national debt soar rather than trimming projected Medicare and
Social Security benefits. And there will be more protectionism, although it may be called
'industrial policy.'"
"The early outlines of the [second-term] agenda are starting to emerge," Andrew Restuccia
reports in The Wall Street Journal. "Among the issues under consideration: continuing the
administration's efforts to lower prescription drug prices, pushing for a broad infrastructure
bill and taking another crack at reforming the country's immigration system, [White House]
officials said." They also want to reduce the deficit.
Under Trump, immigration reform is never a good thing. But it's hard to imagine anything
major happening without Democratic cooperation.
Internationally, many observers expect Trump to continue to nurture his isolationist
tendencies. But President Bernie Sanders would probably have similar impulses to focus on
America First.
By all means, vote against Trump. But don't freak out at the thought of a second term.
Mourn what happened under the first one instead -- and work to reverse it.
"... It seems to me, though, that running on little more than people's fond memories of the Obama administration won't be enough in de-industrialized, opioid-ravaged Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Bernie outperforms Biden in all three, according to current polls). Trump won there by a combined margin of 77,744 votes precisely because of voters who, after eight years of Obama, had nearly lost hope and were hungry for change. ..."
Supporters who were expecting a more radical agenda may feel betrayed, and that could play into the hands of the Democrats.
In its ridiculous dual
endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, the New York Times Editorial
Board divided the Democratic field into those candidates who "view President Trump as an
aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible" and those who
"believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that
they must be replaced."
I've
already written about how arbitrarily the Board sorted candidates into one group or
another, but the dichotomy itself is useful. Recently, I've found that it helps to make a
parable of it.
Some Democratic candidates think Trump has flipped over the political table. They want to
set it back up, dab at the tablecloth, enforce better manners, reheat the entrées, and
put a second scoop of ice cream on the pie à la mode. Biden and Bloomberg are currently
the frontrunners in this category, but even the supposedly radical Elizabeth Warren, by virtue
of her moderating compromises and general palatability to the party elite, deserves (at least
in part) the label of table re-setter.
For others, though, Trump never actually flipped the table. Sure, he promised to, but as
soon as he sat down and dug into his well-done steak, something changed. Many of his signature
dishes never materialized. And although he continued to insist that the kitchen staff were
defiling the food, he seemed awfully chummy with the management. The management, for their
part, obligingly looked the other way while he belched, used the wrong knife, and generally
flouted the edicts of Emily Post. Those at the far end of the table where pickings were slim,
many of whom had played a part in elevating Trump to his lofty position, wondered what had gone
wrong. Was the table bolted invisibly to the floor? Or had Trump betrayed them? Meanwhile, the
food, rotten long before Trump had sat down, continued to attract flies.
Into this category, I would place Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, of
whom only Bernie remains standing.
Biden thinks he can still salvage dinner; Bernie wants to go full Gordon Ramsay.
To be clear, neither of these is exactly my position. My question is how Trump will respond
to the latter. Sure, Biden's guy's-guy persona might be enough to take back the Rust Belt and
push him over 270. It seems to me, though, that running on little more than people's fond
memories of the Obama administration won't be enough in de-industrialized, opioid-ravaged
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Bernie outperforms Biden in all three, according to
current polls). Trump won there by a
combined margin of 77,744 votes precisely because of voters who, after eight years of
Obama, had nearly lost hope and were hungry for change.
This feeling of being let down by Obama's messianic promises, what Sarah Palin eloquently
called his "hopey-changey thing," could cut both ways, though. Trump still hasn't built his
wall. Manufacturing jobs have not returned en masse; tariffs on China
have squeezed farmers and failed to produce the speedy victory he promised. The wars he
promised to end still rage, and we've gone to the brink with Iran. Yes, the economy is strong,
and conventional wisdom has it that the incumbent only loses if the economy tanks. But Bernie
makes a strong case that the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the economy are not the same
thing. Six out of 10 Americans feel they're
better off than they were three years ago, but I wonder whether the frustrated
Midwesterners who swung the election in 2016 have gotten what they wanted out of Trump. If not,
they might be willing to try something new . The
distance between left-populism and right-populism is, after all, far shorter than the distance
between the center-left and the center-right. If Obama let you down and Trump let you down, why
not vote Sanders? You've already switched parties once.
Trump shot to the top of the Republican primary polls because he had the energy of a
disruptor. The media showered l'enfant terrible with free advertising. Since the impeachment,
though, it seems like the press's white-hot Trump derangement has cooled at precisely the wrong
time. These days, it's Bernie drawing all the outrage, including accusations of Russian
stoogery and wild speculation about anarchic brokered conventions.
Slowly, a narrative is solidifying: if you're ready to say "the hell with it," vote
Sanders; if you want more of the same, vote Trump. This perception could prove fatal to the
incumbent.
Trump will give Bernie both barrels with "you're a communist" and "how are we supposed to
pay for that?" But those might actually work in Bernie's favor. On the campaign trail, Trump
proposed a number of fanciful policies, from punishing post-abortive women to deporting 12
million people to the possibility of nuking Europe, and all it got him was more free media. He
never explained how the hell he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall, but nobody cared.
Trump was bold, brash, and unconcerned with breaking rules or offending people. Now Sanders,
less crass but equally brash, has usurped that brand positioning. This move could force Trump
into the role of a brake-pumping Deng Xiaoping, persecuting the authentic radicals while
hollowly insisting that he remains the true custodian of the populist revolution.
Badgering Bernie about his lavish Medicare-for-All plan and his lack of clarity about how
to fund it could induce sticker shock in the American electorate, but it could also solidify
voters' perception that Sanders is the dynamic visionary and Trump the static naysayer. Bernie
seems to actively cultivate this edgy persona. Why else would he call himself a "democratic
socialist" rather than a "social democrat," a term that more accurately describes his policies
and leaves out the scary S-word to boot?
On the debate stage, Bernie will almost certainly castigate Trump for exploiting the
anxieties of those coveted 77,744 and delivering on little of what he promised. If Trump
counters that he's been stymied by the Deep State, he loses again. His die-hard supporters will
buy it, but at least some voters at the end of their rope will think, "Well, if Trump couldn't
hit hard enough to shatter the ossified bureaucracy, maybe Sanders can. Or maybe he'll get it
rolling in the direction he wants, transforming that bureaucratic mass from an immovable object
into an unstoppable force."
I worry that our politics have entered a downward spiral. Hyperpartisan polarization has
ensured that everyone feels precarious all the time, and thanks to the ever-morphing values of
liquid modernity, moderate candidates can no longer run fast
enough to stay in place. If America is no longer great, it must be made great again by
whatever means necessary. If it was never great, it must be radically transformed. As checks,
balances, bureaucrats, and practicalities frustrate the sweeping aims of each successive
political messiah, they prepare the way for one even more extreme to follow. If this happens
enough times, the populists of whichever stripe, thwarted again and again, will finally turn
against the institutions of their own society. Enter Thomas Hobbes, stage right or left.
I recognize that, for all but the most milquetoast of centrists, the status quo has plenty
of problems. I even admit that my own sympathy to populism has grown since 2016. But the trend
I've described in American politics is enough to make me sympathize with C.S. Lewis, who
grew fed up with an electorate that demanded "such qualities as 'vision,' 'dynamism,' [and]
'creativity'" from candidates.
Lewis longed for a political leader "who will do a day's work for a day's pay, who will
refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job." He even
sardonically proposed founding "a Stagnation Party -- which at General
Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken
place."
It's enough to make me miss Jeb Bush.
Grayson Quay is a freelance writer and M.A. at Georgetown University.
US is an oligarchic republic, like the good old Venetian Republic of old. As an outsider of
the US polity, I just get the popcorn and beer during US elections. While the PoTUS has not
that much power in the US (albeit a savvy executive, controlling all the federal agencies and
appointments in various places, and having the appeal of executive power, which is direct
raw), it can be crushing for the outside world. The droned people can attest to that. The
starved people due to sanctions can attest to that, the sick and un-treatable people due to
sanctions can attest to that power of the PoTUS.
Building the wall is itself a lie. It would be simple to reduce immigration by a lot. use
e-verify
The wall is an expensive distraction, that would have zero impact on immigration.
It allows Trump and other elite (who want the low wage workers) to pander. They can tell
their base they are being so, so harsh on immigrants, while doing nothing.
...Make America Great is a revolt of the poor and middle class who want their share of the
economy instead of giving it away to foreign countries and foreign immigrants. That revolt is
not going to go away. However if you are blindly living off the largess of our nation and its
big government social welfare programs then you have no connection to education, to
employment and from your point of view the government provides your living and the living for
your children so as long as you get your check it doesn't matter whether there is 1 person
living off that social safety net or 1 thousand or 1 million or 1 billion.
It was never Trump's revolution to deliver. We the people delivered the revolution in
bringing in DJT to expose and (hopefully) weaken the entrenched Establishment. The former has
been accomplished exceedingly well. And there is more work toward that goal to be done. I'm
more than impressed with the progress that we've made. Captains can be changed quickly but
this ship does not turn easily.
This is a site for GOP establishment types. They suppressed us as deplorables and lied to us
with false promises. So we gave them Trump. May the never Trumper Romney types rot in hell
won't be enough in de-industrialized, opioid-ravaged Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin
Is this 'opioid epidemic' for real? I keep hearing about it. Or is it just like the Global
Warming Hoax and people are just exaggerating this 'epidemic', like the coronavirus
nonsense??
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
"... IMHO, Sanders, accused of being a 'self-identified' socialist, should be emphasizing the U.S. is shoulder-deep in socialism for the 1% who have access to free Fed funds. ..."
it's not a lock that Trump will be re-elected. It's the great silent majority of moderates
[RINOs, DINOs] and independents who fear another 4 years of Trump -
The Autocratic President of the United States
a brutal assessment -
Donald Trump can be seen as some sort of a deadly "political virus", which was introduced
accidently into the American body politic in 2016.
Introduction
Wednesday, February 5, 2020 will come to be remembered as a date of historic
significance for the United States. Indeed, this is the date when a Senate majority of 52
Republican Senators (with the notable exception of Sen. Mitt Romney), voted against
convicting President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of justice, in the
impeachment trial of the latter. That is also the date when Donald Trump interpreted such
exoneration as a blank check to move towards a fully autocratic presidency.
Thus, in open defiance of the American Constitution and of America's checks-and-balances
system, Trump's Republican enablers have placed the American people before a fait accompli
and the only question now is to see if this dangerous drift toward autocracy will be
condoned or reversed in the next presidential election of November 3rd.[.]
IMHO, Sanders, accused of being a 'self-identified' socialist, should be emphasizing the
U.S. is shoulder-deep in socialism for the 1% who have access to free Fed funds. Free as in
ZERO interest (0%) while jim and joe mainstreet struggle to pay interest on debt.
@ RSH 66
[If] either are nominated - or any other of the current crop of losers - the Democrats will
lose against Trump, despite Trump making all kinds of incredibly stupid statements during the
campaign. Because, let's face it, Trump will do stupid stuff all during the election race -
and his supporters will no doubt ignore them or praise him for them. [;]
There is that Great Silent Majority made up of Independents, RINOs, DINOs, and Moderates
who are embarrassed by and are tired of Trump. Also, throw in those who will refuse to
participate in the rigged system. In 2020 this time it's different.
Another great Dave Lindorff item , "The Red-Baiting of Bernie Sanders Has Begun and is
Already Becoming Laughable," a topic we all knew was coming. Given his performances, Chris
Matthews would be better off with a lobotomy. Many others are just as bad in their display of
ignorance on the topic.
Meanwhile,
Mnuchin admits before the Senate's Finance Committee that Trump's budget does gut Social
Security and Medicare, proving Trump lied--again:
"Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, tweeted in
response to the exchange that 'Mnuchin admits Trump's budget cuts your earned benefits in
Social Security.'
"'Slowing the rate of increase' is Washington-speak for cutting benefits and breaking the
Social Security and Medicare guarantee,' Wyden added.
"The Trump admin claims there are no cuts to Social Security in the budget. So why
wouldn't Sec Mnuchin answer a simple yes or no question about whether there are billions in
cuts to Social Security, hurting seniors?
"Answer: because there are cuts to Social Security in the budget."
Yes, you can bet Sanders will milk that for all its worth just in time for all those
retirees living in Vegas to cast their primary votes.
"... Speaking of Trump's donors, we wrote Trump a blank check in the 2016 election to deliver on the MAGA agenda that he had sold us. We voted for big ideas like "nationalism" and "populism." The reasons why I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were immigration, trade, foreign policy, political correctness and campaign finance and furthering these big ideas of "nationalism" and "populism." He has been a disappointment on all fronts. ..."
"... Orthodox Jews hit the jackpot with the King of Israel and Zionists have been on an unprecedented winning streak. In just the last three months, Trump has issued an executive order to ban anti-Semitism on college campuses, assassinated Qasem Soleimani and has given Bibi Netanyahu the green light to annex large swathes of the West Bank. Trump is even considering allowing Jonathan Pollard to return to Israel. Is it any wonder then that a recent Gallup poll found that Israelis support his "America First" foreign policy over Americans by a whopping 18-point margin? ..."
"... Trump's Chumps have demonstrated in the last two election cycles how easy they are to manipulate. They can be relied on to vote and shill for the GOP no matter what it does. Donald Trump isn't under any pressure from these people to change. He knows his mark better than they know themselves. They are so desperate for acceptance and to participate in elections and to feel like they are "winning" that they will delude themselves like the rest of his cult into believing almost anything. Give a drowning man enough rope and he will hang himself. ..."
I spent months making the case for Trump on
this website. I will be the first to admit that I was wrong and that those who were skeptical of Trump in our
community were right in 2016. In that election, I drank the koolaid and was one of Trump's Chumps. Unlike
AmNats, I have tried to learn something from that experience.
I hate getting fooled by Republicans.
In 2020, we have a far better sense of
Donald Trump. The Trump administration has a record now. Donald Trump's first term is mostly history. We can
now look back with the benefit of hindsight and evaluate our standing after the last three years without being
drunk on Trump koolaid. No one drank the Trump koolaid in our community more deeply than the AmNats. Some of
them remained drunk on the Trump koolaid even after the 2018 midterms. A handful of his most faithful
cheerleaders have never given up faith in their GOD EMPEROR and succumbed to reality.
What is the reality of the Trump presidency?
1.) Those who feared that the Trump
administration would lull the conservative base into a false sense of complacency and put all the normies back
to sleep were right.
Donald Trump has told his base that they are "winning." They wear Q shirts and
"Trust The Plan" at his rallies. They are Making America Great Again simply by having a Republican in the White
House. They are content to go on believing that
even as illegal immigration DOUBLED in FY 2019
and became a far worse problem than it ever was under the
Obama administration. As we saw after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, they are also ready to swallow
Trump's war propaganda against Iran and believe anything their dear leader tells them. It was Julian Assange
and Roger Stone who went to prison under Trump, not Hillary Clinton. Normies are content to have conservatism
in power and
are less willing
to give us an audience with a Republican in the White House.
2.) Those who feared that the Trump
administration would suck all of the energy out of the Alt-Right were right . In the final two years of
the Obama administration (2015 and 2016), the Alt-Right was thriving on social media and was brimming with
energy. Four years later, the country has only gotten worse, but the brand has been destroyed and all the
energy it had back then as an online subculture has been sucked out of the room by Trump and channeled into
pushing the standard conservative policy agenda. The movement has been in disarray and has been divided and
demoralized ever since Trump won the 2016 election. The last few years have been terrible. As soon as Trump won
the 2016 election, conservatives shifted their attention back to policing their right flank. They are far more
successful at policing their right flank when they are in power.
3.) Those who rationalized voting
for Donald Trump on the basis of immigration and changing demographics were proven wrong about that too.
He has refurbished the George W. Bush era fence. Since he has been president, Donald Trump
has built all of three new miles of fence
, which is actually less than W. and Obama. He didn't do anything
about sanctuary cities or pass E-Verify. He has
actually increased
guest worker programs
. There has been no cuts to legal immigration. Instead, Jared Kushner's legal
immigration plan
only proposes to reconfigure the composition of it for big business
so that more high skilled workers and
fewer peons are imported from the Third World. Illegal immigration has remained steady and has surged past the
worst highs of the Obama years. It has recently
fallen back to 2015 levels after peaking in FY 2019
. Trump has vowed to pass an amnesty to save DACA. The
Muslim ban
became an ineffective travel ban
. The only area where he has had any real success is refugee resettlement,
but overall the bottom line is that after four years of Trump there are millions of more illegal aliens and
legal immigrants here. Donald Trump hasn't even
deported as many illegal aliens as Obama
.
AmNats have been purged from Turning Point
USA, banned from its events and reduced to haranguing Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk from the sidewalk. They have
been banned from even attending CPAC. Those who thought that they could work within the system to reform
conservatism were grossly mistaken. Steve King was
condemned by Congress, stripped of his committee assignments and has been treated as a pariah within the
Republican Party
. Michelle Malkin
was deplatformed by Mar-a-Lago
and excommunicated from the synagogue of mainstream conservatism. Ann
Coulter was marginalized in the Trump administration. Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon were both fired. Donald
Trump hired conservatives and staffed his administration with his enemies. While I won't name any names, I will
just point to all the people who actually worked within the conservative movement who have all been purged and
fired in the Trump era by Conservatism, Inc. as proof that working within the system doesn't work and is a bad
idea and those people would have had more job security doing almost anything else.
5.) What about Antifa and Big Tech
censorship? Aren't those good reasons to vote for Donald Trump in 2020? Neither of these issues were on our
radar screen BEFORE Donald Trump won the 2016 election.
Both of those problems became dramatically
worse
as a result of electing the boogeyman as president
. Far from being a victory for the Dissident
Right, we became identified with Donald Trump and were caught in the backlash while he delivered Jeb Bush's
agenda (the boogeyman wasn't real). Before Trump was elected president, Antifa was a tiny nuisance that
protested Amren conferences and there was still a great deal of free speech on the internet. We could also hold
rallies all over the South without serial harassment from these people. Now, everything from harassment and
doxxing by "journalists" to chronic Antifa violence to police stand down orders to deplatforming to FBI
counterextremism witch hunts has became part of the scenery of life under the Trump administration which is
only interested in these new grievances insofar as they can be milked and exploited to elect more Republicans.
In hindsight, it would have been better NOT to have identified ourselves with the boogeyman in 2016.
6.) Isn't having Donald Trump in
the White House a huge victory for "identitarianism" and big ideas like "nationalism" and "populism." President
Donald Trump's signature policy victories have been passing a huge corporate tax cut, criminal justice reform
and renegotiating and rebranding NAFTA.
Trump is a "populist" in the sense that he has DEEPENED
neoliberalism. When you look at his policies, he has continued and further extended the status quo of the last
forty years which has been tax cuts, deregulation, entitlement cuts, free trade agreements and huge increases
in military spending. Trump's economic agenda has been no different from the last three Republican presidents.
He has been all bark and no bite.
Donald Trump is pointedly NOT a
nationalist, populist or identitarian. He carefully avoids ever mentioning the word "White." Instead, he talks
incessantly about the black, Hispanic, Asian-American, LGBTQ and female unemployment rate. He holds events at
the White House for blacks and Hispanics. He delivers policies for blacks and Hispanics too like criminal
justice reform. The "forgotten man" couldn't be further from Donald Trump's mind when he is schmoozing with the
likes of Steve Schwarzman and boasting about the stock market. Trump is a demagogue who recognized that
nationalist and populist sentiments were growing in the American electorate and he has harnessed and
manipulated and exploited those forces for his donors.
7.) Speaking of Trump's donors, we
wrote Trump a blank check in the 2016 election to deliver on the MAGA agenda that he had sold us.
We
voted for big ideas like "nationalism" and "populism." The reasons why I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were
immigration, trade, foreign policy, political correctness and campaign finance and furthering these big ideas
of "nationalism" and "populism." He has been a disappointment on all fronts.
Those of us who were duped into believing
that Donald Trump had a team of Jews who were going to craft all of these policies which were going to
stabilize America's demographics should reflect on what has actually happened during the Trump presidency.
Orthodox Jews hit the jackpot with the King of Israel and Zionists have been on an unprecedented winning
streak. In just the last three months, Trump has issued an executive order to ban anti-Semitism on college
campuses, assassinated Qasem Soleimani and has given Bibi Netanyahu the green light to annex large swathes of
the West Bank. Trump is even considering allowing Jonathan Pollard to return to Israel. Is it any wonder then
that a recent Gallup poll found that Israelis support his "America First" foreign policy over Americans by a
whopping 18-point margin?
Trump's Chumps haven't been deterred by any
of this. They want us to write Donald Trump a second political blank check in 2020, which his Jewish donors
intend to cash at the White House,
only this time he won't be restrained by fear of losing his reelection
.
In light of everything he has delivered for them so far, what is Donald Trump going to do in his second term
for his Jewish donors who fund the GOP? Do we trust Trump not to start a war with Iran?
8.) In the last two elections,
Donald Trump has pulled a bait-and-switch and Trump's Chumps are gullible enough to fall for it a third time.
While I was wrong about the 2016 election, I was one of the first voices in our community to wise up to what
was going on. By the 2018 midterms, I saw the bait-and-switch coming and warned our readers about it.
As you might recall, the 2018 midterms were
about tax cuts and the roaring economy, deregulation and putting Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. It
was also full of dire warnings about scary Antifa groups, Big Tech censorship and caravans from Central America
to stir up the base. Trump vowed to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship. The GOP knows what
its base cares about and shamelessly manipulates its base during election season.
After the 2018 election was over, you
might recall how Trump banned bump stocks and passed criminal justice reform for Van Jones and the Koch
Brothers during the lame duck session of Congress. As we entered 2019, the Republican agenda changed to
overthrowing the government of Venezuela to install Juan Guaidó in power and passing anti-BDS legislation. The
GOP spent the whole year accusing the Democrats of anti-Semitism and promoting Jexodus. Virtually nothing else
was talked about for a whole year in Congress but anti-Semitism until Trump issued his executive order on
anti-Semitism on college campuses after the House and Senate had failed to reach agreement on anti-BDS
legislation. The White House
held its Social Media Summit in July and nothing came out of it
. Antifa disappeared from the agenda and was
replaced by a government crackdown on White Nationalists after El Paso. Ending birthright citizenship was
forgotten about. Illegal immigration soared to its highest level in over a decade last May.
Don't forget how Trump's Chumps told us how
"Chad" it was in 2018 to elect more Republicans to stop Antifa, the caravans and Big Tech censorship and how
those same Republicans once elected to office preferred to fight anti-Semitism for AIPAC.
10.) Trump's Chumps have
demonstrated in the last two election cycles how easy they are to manipulate. They can be relied on to vote and
shill for the GOP no matter what it does.
Donald Trump isn't under any pressure from these people to
change. He knows his mark better than they know themselves. They are so desperate for acceptance and to
participate in elections and to feel like they are "winning" that they will delude themselves like the rest of
his cult into believing almost anything. Give a drowning man enough rope and he will hang himself.
Four years later, Trump's Chumps are still
sitting by the phone waiting for the Donald to call back while he huddles with Steve Schwarzman and Bibi
Netanyahu. They can't see what is front of their own eyes. By going ALL IN for Trump, they wrecked, divided and
demoralized their own movement in order to advance the standard conservative policy agenda. They have been
pushed off the internet and in some cases even to the dark web. In virtually every way, they are worse off than
they were four years ago and have nothing to show for it. Insofar as they are getting more web traffic, it is
because America has only continued to deteriorate under Trump, which would have happened anyway regardless who
won in 2016.
It's not too late for Trump's Chumps to
reclaim one thing that they have lost over the past four years. They can still reclaim their self respect. They
don't have to participate in this charade a second time and mislead people who are less informed because they
now know full well that Sheldon Adelson has bought Donald Trump and the lickspittle GOP Congress.
Note:
Imagine thinking a
New York City billionaire is a "populist." LMAO what were we thinking? He told us what we wanted to hear and we
believed it.
My understanding is that net foreign immigration has gone down in the last few years. Hardly a triumph, I
agree.
There are quite literally hordes of foreigners living here. Even a president who was a combination of
Jesus and Superman would find it excrutiatingly difficult to eliminate immigration under these circumstances.
All this seemed painfully obvious to me in 2016. We all know who Trump had been the first 70 years of his life
– a braggart, a reprobate and a real estate developer who loved celebrities and organized crime figures. He is
married to a high class escort from Slovenia who speaks English worse than a Mexican immigrant. This man is
going to be the savior of Western Civilization? He has always been a fraud.
@MattinLA
Trump has not even made a sincere effort. Where is the effort to stop birth right citizenship? To punish
employers who hire illegals? He doesn't try to build a coalition to stop immigration, he is clearly using it as
political issue to keep his low info base revved up, but Trump doesn't actually want it resolved. It is the
same with abortion, where both Parties are perfectly happy with the status quo because it allows each to fund
raise by pointing at the threat coming from the other side. And at the end of the day it is all about find
raising.
Pretty much an accurate article, but what Democratic Presidential Contender would have been a better choice?
The answer is none. The modern day Democratic Party, and most everyone who identifies with it, is as morally
disgusting and filthy of a political party as has ever existed on this planet. Whatever grievances you have
with DT, wait until the next Democrat gets elected President. The trifecta of Diversity (aka hate and blame
Whitey for everything), LGBTQ insanity, and Climate Change hysteria will be shoved down the throats of this
country like never before. The Obama years were just a warm-up for the cultural destruction that will happen to
this country when the next Dem gets elected.
Actually, just bring the Civil War on. Whites will either get some self-respect and stand up for themselves
before it is too late, or surrender to living in a ghetto trash culture and being ruled over by Jews and their
white hating 'POC' puppets. It's an easy choice in my book.
I started college in 1982 with nothing but high hopes for the future, by 1990 I knew something was terribly
going wrong with this country, and now I know the destruction of this country is virtually guaranteed. No good
choices, indeed, as stated above. WTF happened?
I voted for this executive. I am not ashamed of my vote. However, as someone who voted on agendas and policies,
I disappointed with the results. I knew going in there wasn't much in store for me personally by supporting the
candidate. it was a diversion at the time from the standard fare. The problem with the standard fare is that
they offered more of what were the problems. candidate Trump, actually responded to the issues echoing the same
concerns, even if in a less than civil tenor. He gave as good as he got or better. I would that had been more
substantive, but it was what it was.
There are some things that need to be cleared up in your article, most prominant of which is the fairly
loose use of straw men positions. Just a few:
–the president did not run as a conservative despite comments he made about some conservative aspects of his
own views.
–he never ever abandoned his position on same sex relations and marriage -- both of which are neither
conservative or something he campaigned on, so it was clear from the get go, he had no intention of changing
that game. What he did contend is that religious people have the same protections and they should not be cowed
–the overton window that would permit any president to openly support a condition in which skin color is the
primary or a primary point of view would violate the principles and foundation of the country. but regardless
most of the country sees that as an anathema to the what they want to country to be -- even far right
conservatives are not arguing a white nationalist perspective -- trying to weigh him down with an overton window
position that was never in play, at least not as you suggest it. The president started with a definitive lean
in that direction of sorts, but it probably did not take him, long to figure out -- he was surrounded by whites
in control of the country -- whites are not being pushed around by non-whites, inspite of having elected a
non-white executive. But still he has knee jerk responses to dismantle the nonwhites policies. He remains as
prowhite as any candidate in office. his references to how he claims to have aided nonwhites as pushback
against accusations of being "racist" makes perfect sense. That does not make him "anti-white".
–your bait and switch assail is a tad convoluted. Antifa big tech and tax cuts . . . big tech and antifa
initially responded with the same shock and vitriol as all his opposition when he was elected -- but as time has
worn big tech has moved on seeing the current exec as a nonthreat -- tax cuts proceed unimpeded. The president's
position on Jews and Israel were clear from the start and remain as they were -- one can contend he is
overboard, but there was no bait and switch. The president did not say I was not for Israel and pro limiting
immigration, he made clear he opposed illegal immigration and was proIsrael they are not competing issues . He
has simply abided by one and dragged his feet on the other, if not abandoned it all together.
There are some other issues that need addressing, not the least of which is that many of us who supported
the current executive before and now, have done so calling him out on issues where he has failed or is failing
and have done so from the start -- -
@Priss Factor
the scary part about that is blumpf and the (((deep state))) would do that to you or me too
it was sickening
to see that he seemed to have regained his self confidence from the assassination of Soleimani and was
blathering on at the SOTU as though everything was just fine, better than ever
One good thing Trump did was save us from that shrieking Valkyrie warmongering Hildabeast. If she had been
elected she would have taken it as a mandate to start a war with Russia and/or Iran. Personally I was never
voting for Trump but against Hillary.
Now that the demoncrats no longer have someone like Hillary running it would be pretty safe to vote a third
party which I plan to do this election. Screw King Cyr-ass and his Zionist claque of losers.
@MattinLA
The US economy alone (not to mention the suckiness of the culture and people) has been bad enough going back to
a year or so before the crash that net immigration, I believe, has been outward. Stupid Orange Man yelling at
people "Get outta here! You're fired!" means less when they calmly retort, "I was leaving anyway".
Happened to be in the Emerald city on Wednesday and wandered through the Seattle Convention Center .there were
so many hindoos milling about thought it was some kind of curry cooking convention.
But no .it was something
called Microsoft Ready which is Microsoft's internal marketing, technical, and sales event bringing together
over 21,000 Microsoft staff.
Had to be at least 75% dotheads with a sprinkling of turbanized Sikhs, and maybe
25% whites and asians. Asked one of the dotheads if Paul Allen would be attending this year, but just drew a
quizzical stare.
Noted in the Mr. Softie handouts that these legions of imported cut rate code scribblers are
referred to as "scientists". Trumpstein actually did something about the H1B visa program .he increased it
claiming we need more of these half priced "brainiacs". Can't find enough discount American code scribblers,
you know.
Trump first got my attention when he made those initial comments against the illegal invasion. But later, when
he said that Mexico was going to pay for the wall and talked about putting a "big beautiful door" in it, I
figured he was probably full of it. When he attended AIPAC, I was done.
Congress has actually condemned White Nationalism at least two or three times since Donald Trump has been
president. Far more White Nationalists have gone to prison under Donald Trump than Barack Obama. Trump has
appointed "conservative judges" like Thomas Cullen who put RAM in prison.
After the last 3 years of seditious behavior of lying politicians like Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi and the
traitorous schemes of deep state actors like Weismann, Vindman, Sondland and Yovanovitch I would still vote for
Trump in the hopes that some of these traitors and others in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA would be prosecuted.
Hopefully, Durham will do his job before the election and we will see some of the coup plotters going to jail.
Even if that doesn't happen, a final payback to the treacherous Democrats and their propagandists in the MSM
will be another conservative judge on the Supreme Court; a change that will impact the next 30+ years. That
alone will be enough for me.
I agree with much of the analysis I've read here, but let me offer a somewhat different perspective. The author
notes that, "Donald Trump is pointedly NOT a nationalist, populist or identitarian." This is probably true, but
it's also not necessarily a bad thing at this point if you're a contrarian of this sort.
My read of the
situation is that Donald Trump is almost certainly going to lose the general election, despite the confident
predictions of an incoming Trumpslide by deluded supporters. In his defeat, he'll take the last vestiges of
Reagan conservatism down with him. Even if he doesn't, Trump will almost certainly be the last republican
president due to demographic change, so it doesn't matter either way. It would make sense in that light to let
Mr. Trump run and lose on a platform of standard fare conservatism than have him be closely associated with
populism and discredit that ideology on his way out.
People forget that Donald Trump was only made possible by Mitt Romney's failure in 2012. Romney ran a
standard conservative, milquetoast campaign and lost; he was nevertheless called all manner of vile names by
the left but responded like a gentlemen. His defeat came as quite a shock to many rank and file GOPers. Fox
News had convinced them leading up to election day that they were going to win. How could they not? Romney said
all the same things Ronald Regan did and he won; he talked up the military, he repeated economic platitudes and
denounced socialism, he self-immolated over racial issues and claimed democrats were the real racists. So,
obviously, Mitt Romney should – by all rights – win just as Reagan did. Lost on them was the demographic
situation, among other things. 2012 America was not 1980 America. When Reagan won California in 1980, Los
Angeles was majority white; California had two million more white Caucasians than it does now (Trump and Reagan
received almost exactly the same number of white votes in California but with different results); the economy
for blue collar voters was better, so there was less opposition to Reaganomics.
When Romney ran as a traditional, non-offensive republican and lost, he discredited that ideology and made a
louder, more combative alternative possible. That was Donald Trump. In the minds of many republicans,
conservatism could no longer win elections, so why not go all in with a contrarian radical? I expect that
mentality to return sometime after Trump loses this November. Radical sentiment has been quieted as of late
only because normies sheepishly think they are winning. That's probably why the establishment is freaking out:
they know that won't last. You occasionally see moderate democrats asking for peace and quiet, perhaps
realizing this, but it's unfortunately not a message well-received by the fringe left who control social media
and these divisive late night network shows.
My prediction: on election night 2020, there will be a lot of shell-shocked republican normies. Either the
despised socialist is elected or a man who stokes racial animus for personal gain – Pete Buttigieg – will
become president-elect. In the minds of conservative Boomers, that wasn't supposed to happen; it's as if
someone said they could see inside the event horizon of a black hole – total violation of established physical
reality.
Impossible
or so they thought. Republican operatives are already trying to help Bernie
Sanders in both Iowa and South Carolina. They foolishly think Sanders can't win, but that's not true. I've seen
the polls. On election night, Donald Trump will have to deliver a heart-wrenching speech to his deluded
followers conceding defeat to someone they thought couldn't win.
But the Trumpslide. Qanon said to trust the plan*. We're winning. The wall. MAGA.
All exposed as lies. The sort of lies a defeated people tell themselves. Cerebral comfort food for the
weak-minded.
In the process, Donald Trump will discredit Conservatism Inc. just like Mitt Romney did in 2012. Contrarians
will escape the judgment of history and live to fight another day. Most likely, there are yet more dissident
stars on the right to be made. Some older ones may also return in the aftermath.
Considering circumstances, the best path forward (speaking as devil's advocate) is to critique the man
without vocally supporting his defeat. Let him go down fair and square. Starting in November, there will many
republicans in Trump's former base looking for an alternative. They will seek out dissidents they heard about
but dismissed as blackpillers; MAGA supporters will be sidelined. Third Way Alternatives should consider laying
out a well-reasoned, practical and achievable alternative in the present with the anticipation they will be
called upon in the near future.
However, I wouldn't count on that considering the lack of organization and drive I see on the dissident
right. Mr. Griffith's essay, for example, is filled with a strange defeated tone. It sounds as if he just wants
to go back to business as usual before Trump: do his contrarian thing without being harassed. Certainly, life
would be easier. But you would be no closer to any kind of victory, either. As the author notes, dissidents
were tolerated before Trump. But why? I think laying the full blame on Trump is not warranted. Yes, he failed
to protect his followers – that's one big reason why dissent is now being crushed. There is another reason,
however: you were winning. You were only tolerated before because you were on the wrong side of history. The
establishment didn't fear you because you couldn't challenge them. With Trump's surprise victory, the situation
changed. With that in mind, what's the point of going back to business as usual while being on a certain path
to defeat? unless you want to lose (or don't care), unless you simply want the freedom to be a contrarian
without accomplishing anything. Sounds like a grift to me, pardon the rudeness.
If you want to ineffectually complain about the ruling class on Twitter while being free of harassment, then
supporting the democrat is probably your best bet. They'll tolerate you because you don't threaten them. I
think that's what a lot of guys on the right really want, which is why they went so heavily into Yang's UBI. It
was a sort of early retirement option for them, regardless of how they justified it – get free money and cash
out, let the world burn.
*Well, that and to drink bleach to ward off the wuhan coronavirus. Do NOT trust that plan.
Disclaimer: I'm speaking as a neutral third party who was never involved in any of this stuff.
Idiotic article. Yeah, Trump is a Trojan horse who is making. Israel great again. Yeah, he's a fragile,
narcissistic buffoon. The only unabashed positive I can really offer is that he is in 2020, as he was in 2016,
the least bad option.
The author doesn't seem to quite get numbers. God, as they say, tends to favor the side with the biggest
battalions. Perhaps he should take a look at a demographic plot of the map of the United States circa 2020. The
truth is that, if a hyper-competent, charismatic candidate had formed a consensus around Trump's 2016 platform
in maybe 1975, the demographic trajectory of the country could have been changed. It's way, way too late for
that.
If you were stupid enough to think in 2016 that demographic realities were going to be unwound, or even that
there could consensus to address the issue in a serious unapologetic way, I really don't know what to tell you.
You're probably too stupid to be operating heavy machinery, much less posting articles on Unz. Trump's election
is Prop 187, circa 1980's. Far too little, far too late. But still the least bad option.
All there really is at this point is a rearguard action, and maybe win a skirmish here and there. In terms
of the Long War, we don't have the numbers or the consensus. Grow the fuck up.
I'm often asked by people in the US who learn I've lived outside the US the better part of three decades when I
might return to the US, to which I lightly reply, "When the Republic is restored. I guess that means never."
At the end of the day, who better than Trump can you get behind? I guess it is game over. The only problem is
that the rest of the developed world is going in the same problemmatic direction, and places like Uruguay still
have their occasionally lurches into insanity.
2.) Those who feared that the Trump administration would suck all of the energy out of the Alt-Right were
right.
This is very typical. In the waning days of G.W. Bush there was a very strong hard left anti-war movement in
place, and doing well on the internet, and also had a home on some cable stations. Once Obama was elected it
faded into obscurity with-in hours, and never resurrected even as Obama become more hawkish than Bush – both
expanding the War on Terror, and codifying the Bush Doctrine.
1. Trump was a con man as a businessman. How did anyone imagine he wouldn't be a con man as
president?
2. Trump knows which side his bread is buttered. How long do you imagine he would've lasted if he actually
did the things he promised, especially ending the Amerikastani Empire, before ending like Kennedy? Six weeks?
3. Whether the author of this article, with whom I sympathise, changes any minds with it is irrelevant.
Trump is the Wall Street/military industrial complex/zionist candidate for re election, and his return to power
is being arranged even as I write this. The shambolic Daymockratic Party impeachment circus and the bad jokes
posing as candidates in their primaries have one purpose alone: to ensure a second term for Donald Trump. What
any normal person votes for is irrelevant.
A common trope on the right is that the left gets what it wants. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just
witness the shenanigans the DNC is pulling in the current primaries. When Pelosi theatrically ripped up Trump's
speech in the SOTU, she shortly thereafter voted to support the efforts to destabilise Venezuela and support
the CIA-handpicked Juan Guaido.
Pro-Israel PACs have flooded the primaries attacking Bernie. CIA puppet Pete Buttigieg is against medicare
for all. Democrats do not get what they want. The only thing they get is woke rhetoric but the neoliberal
economic system and the imperialist foreign policy remains the same.
Jimmy Dore's reference to the "uniparty" is apt here. So while Mr Griffin's catalogue of Trump's various
betrayals is useful, keep in mind that the disease is bipartisan. The US is in many ways a sham democracy where
the actors perform kabuki theater. You will never get an honest say on the core principles of the system.
Regardless if you're coming from the right or the left. And the media is in on the charade.
He is so duplicitous it's mind boggling. Nancy Pelosi is right when she calls him a liar,
although she's no angel herself.
The Jewish Power structure is in total control. Trump WILL BE the final nail in USA coffin, because he is
dictating for Israel, now. Israel will make even bigger moves after he is re-elected, for sure. No doubt to
further the Yinon plan along.
I voted for him too; but will not be voting at all this year. I refuse to play into their twisted game.
They purposely caused all this Chaos to keep people distracted while Big Tech companies consolidate their
power over the internet and the Military Industrial Complex plans the next false flag to kick off the next
invasion (Iran & Syria).
My guess is that Jewish Democrats like Schiff, Nader, and proxy Nancy have all been part of this horrible
PsyOp that has been going down the last 3 years.
It doesn't matter which "side" you are on anymore because there is really only ONE SIDE.
I wouldn't feel bad about being a "Trump Chump" – there are millions of you, after all.
As someone who would
be in the Bernie/Tulsi camp if I lived in the USA (but would also be furiously opposed to being swamped by
Somalis), here's a little advice, free of charge:
You will never get anywhere being attached to a Party of Capital. They will always want to bring cheap
labour into your country, and they don't care what those immigrants do to your family. Money rules. Forget the
GOP, and start your own party.
Imagine thinking a New York City billionaire is a "populist." LMAO what were we thinking? He told us what
we wanted to hear and we believed it.
Not just a NY billionaire, but one who profited from (a) mega-banks, and (b) the ZioNazi media.
His first two reality TV stunts were WWE, and then The Apprentice. The third is his crown achievement.
You call them Trump's Chumps, I've called them TrumpTARDs, because they are fucking useless, mindlessly
idiotic fools/rednecks/inbred losers.
Fact is the country doesn't stand a chance, the "resistance" is more pathetic than the globlalists. If the
last three years has taught the world anything, it's not just how mindlessly stupid TrumpTARDs are, but how
uncivil, rude, aggressive, and downright despicable.
Nobody has harmed the conservative cause more than the Orange Satan.
All, of course, by design. What still gets me is that conservatives are to utterly stupid to fall for it. At
least the Liberals caught on that Obama was a fake early on – the TrumpTARDs just can't get enough of sucking
that Orange ZioNazi's dick.
this who thing looks related to me.. .. the Cornoavirus, the pipeline, the bombings in Syria, the libya-turkey
GNA thing, the recent airliner crash in Turkey, I feel something is surfacing
Trump proved that the nation state system is disastrous for those humans governed by it. The nation state
system is great for those few who are the puppet governors of the few that rule the world.
The problem Mr. Griffin is that the article does not recognize that USA citizens who not part of the
electoral college cannot vote for either the President or the Vice President. Amendment 12 read it.
We should Trumpet Trump because if we don't we might be next..
There are quite literally hordes of foreigners living here.
Fact is none of the fake conservatives, from the Orange Satan to the Governor of Texas, is against illegal
immigration. It would be easy enough to prosecute employers who hire illegals, but neither the Orange Satan,
nor any State, be it Wyoming or Texas, so-called "Red" (Communist) states, does anything about it.
But yet the idiot TrumpTARDs wail on and on about how the Orange Satan is their savior and how Republicans
are better than Democrats.
It's amazing how unbelievably, astoundingly stupid Americans are.
You are either stupid or lying, I believe lying. I say this because in each of your substantive attacks, you
blatantly misstate facts, even obvious ones.
Personally I am honestly and eyes open clinging to the hope that
Trump is sincerely doing his best for us, because the alternative is civil war, and if it comes to that, it
will come to that. Trump is the last possible peaceful salvation for America.
Here are your lies, which tell me you are not genuine:
> He has refurbished the George W. Bush era fence. Since he has been president, Donald Trump has built all of
three new miles of fence,
A blatant and obvious lie to anyone who is tracking the wall progress – "refurbished" means replaced
completely ineffective fence, including vehicle barriers which you can literally walk around, with 18-30ft high
steel fence. You may jerk off to the technicality that it isn't "new", but we all see through you. Over 100
miles so far with 350 more planned, and he has done it with congress kicking and screaming. He even diverted
defense spending for this purpose, against all of Washington's whining and complaining. These are the actions
of someone who is sincere.
>there have been no cuts to legal immigration
Bull shit. Blatant lie. 2017 saw a 10% decrease in net migration from 1046 million to 930 million. 2018 down
another 25% to 700 million, and 2019 15% to 600 million. That's God damn good work for a man with an entire
bureaucracy and 2 parties fighting him. He didn't even get a law to sign and he still cut legal immigration by
almost HALF. I can hardly believe it myself it's too good to be true. Why lie?
>Donald Trump hasn't even deported as many illegal aliens as Obama.
You know as well as I do that Obama changed the reporting of deportations to include 'voluntary returns'.
Obama deported virtually no one from the interior. Regardless, more importantly, we both know how aggressively
both parties and the bureaucracy have fought to prevent Trump from taking action, and yet against all odds he
secured agreements with Honduras El Salvador and Guatemala to deport "Asylum seekers" there, making an end run
around the legal labyrinth that was keeping them here. That is HUGE and you completely omit it.
You also omitted –
Starting a trade war with China
Supporting the break up of the EU
Demanding funds from allies under our umbrella
Not starting a war in Syria or Iran, both of which they desperately tried to force him into
But most of all, you ignored the fact that the entire intelligence apparatus, the entire media, the entire
establishment has sacrificed their credibility in the attack on Trump.
That is the main reason I still have hope. Your lies bald face lies are why I do not believe you are
sincere.
I love it that the jew and the fag won in Iowa. Of course, I don't love that Trump will probably win in Nov.
but the options to him are dismal to say the least. No matter what, once he's out of office the days of this
"republic"/empire are surely numbered.
I disagree that voting for Mr Trump was a mistake. American elections are always a choice of evils, but in this
case it was more a choice between rapid extinction of our species and run-of-the-mill evil, killing only the
odd million people now and then.
I personally take this cartoon very seriously indeed:
If Hillary Clinton had become President, I believe she would have found a way to start a war with Russia.
And that would have resulted in the death of all human beings, plus many other species.
Mr Trump is execrable, it is true. But he has one enormous virtue: for whatever reason, he is extremely open
and candid. Whereas US presidents going back to the 19th century did frightful things while smiling genially
and pretending to be kind, Mr Trump openly admits how frightful he and his deeds are.
That is hastening the demise of the US empire, which is in the interests of all human beings.
@MattinLA
There are certainly no easy choices. As a foreigner I am hardly in a position to criticize, let alone to
encourage US citizens. But perhaps I could remind you of an early President during whose 8 years in power not a
single American or foreigner was killed by the US government?
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be
discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. What country before ever
existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are
not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The
remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or
two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its
natural manure".
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On
Democracy
@MattinLA
IOW, you're going to vote again? For Mr. Trump?
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will
hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our
ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex.
Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for
liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing
Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be
blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, "Orlando Shooting Means Trump for President," June 12, 2016, @ The Unz Review.
All the system needs is for you to pick Red or Blue, accepting the results until the next Most Important
Election Ever.
As a first time voter in 2016, Trump's relative inaction on all that he promised has made me more aware than
ever of the rot that has set in our political system. I was skeptical that political change could be
accomplished prior to 2016 but optimistic. Now I cannot be anymore pessimistic about the future.
@Chet Roman
" another conservative judge on the Supreme Court; a change that will impact the next 30+ years. That alone
will be enough for me."
Yeah, Right.
Like the impact of all the Republican appointees who issued the ruling in Roe v Wade?
Like the impact of Mr. Kennedy, a Republican choice who helped rewrite the legal definition of marriage?
Like the impact of Mr. Roberts, a Republican choice who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and
insurance industries?
What impact do you honestly expect from Mr. Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump's choice who earned his first robe by
helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act?
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court,
the partisan judicial nominations and nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the RedBlue puppet
show that keeps people like Chet Roman voting in the next Most Important Election Ever.
Your disappointment is the inverse of your expectations. Perhaps you should curb your enthusiasm? So what's
next? Join the Communists? Boycott the system? That will teach them! Trump is the best looking horse in the
glue factory. Do you see a candidate you like better?
The effort to remove Trump from office began before he was even sworn in. In terms of intensity the effort has
been unlike anything any of us have ever seen. And that effort has come relentlessly, from all sides. The
media, the late night comics, the intelligence services, the kritarchy, the bureaucracy they have been united
in thwarting Trump's every move, united in flogging an entirely bogus Russian collusion investigation from his
first day in office. And they IMPEACHED the man over nonsense, for crying out loud.
The most powerful elements in this country have thrown, and continue to throw, everything they've got at
him. They have brought this country to the brink of a cataclysm for their hatred of Donald Trump and their
overriding desire to see him removed from power and his voters punished. Their hatred alone is reason enough to
continue to support Trump.
It was a miracle Donald Trump won the presidency. It is a miracle he is still in office. And a miracle is
the only thing that can save us.
Do you not remember how utterly hopeless things seemed in 2015? How completely we'd been beaten? There was
zero chance the immigration tide could be stopped, for one thing. Do you not realize that it is a miracle that
things are slightly less hopeless now? A miracle that, in 2020, we aren't beaten quite so completely? That, by
some miracle, the chance of achieving an immigration time-out within the next four years is now greater than
zero?
Any Trump supporter who turns on Trump because he disapproves of the job Trump has done as president just
shows his own fractiousness, because, in truth, Trump has not yet had a chance to be president. And
politically, turning on Trump is particularly boneheaded given there is absolutely no alternative and we are
out of miracles.
@Divine Right
The GOP donors would never allow a fully-fledged White populist candidate to slip through the net, Trump was
never such a thing which is why he managed to win the primaries.
By the time the boomers die off, it will be too late and even a White Rights candidate would never won as
the demographics will have shifted so much, and this is assuming Whites start skewing towards GOP on the same
way Blacks skew towards Democrats. In reality the younger Whites still have the virus of individuality in their
minds, thinking that politics is about high-minded ideas instead of group interests.
Poor Brad. I spent all that same time trying desperately to show you how far off you were in the support of an
obvious jew water carrier. Twitter (until they dumped me) and then even signing up for your blog.
I left
comment after comment with valuable information, obvious and thorough.
You ignored it all, even in the face of its blatant OBVIOUSNESS. You were a Drumpfter and with Trump saying
just the right thing, you could probably go back.
It is why I left your site and won't go back. You spent years being totally WRONG.
Reading this is like reading the words of a guilty man who was too stupid to see what was truly right in
front of your face. Or one that knew all along but had a different agenda.
Either way, you have zero credibility or discernment when it comes to politics, so why don't you just keep
it to yourself.
Me, a dumb ole redneck, called it in Aug 2015 and didn't stop trying to warn the world of this OBVIOUSNESS.
You know it and I know it.
Some strong points here, not all of them, but a number.
"He has been a disappointment on all fronts."
No statement could be more accurate.
Trump is a failure, but one with a very loud mouth and a rather twisted psychology that magically converts
all failures into successes. Nothing factual ever fazes him.
And the ability to just keep going is a great asset in politics, even if it means you keep going to do
destructive things. You actions communicate strength and purpose and determination to ordinary people.
After all, much of the ordinary public literally has no idea what is going on, abroad or at home, so poorly
informed are they by the mainline press and the political establishment.
He does a daily war dance of self-praise, finding new phrases to whoop and chant, describing his almost
complete failure in the opposite terms.
But because he is doing overall the power establishment's work – against China, against Iran, against
Russia, for Israel, and in Latin America – they not only do not oppose him, they support him.
He does his work rudely and utterly without grace.
He is a man who wears his ignorance as though it were a finely-tailored suit.
But the power establishment is okay with the grotesque style, so long as they get the results they want. And
they do.
The desired results are mainly negative, not positive, achievements.
But that is the essence of imperial America today, to do harm to others in order to improve its own relative
standing. It does almost nothing positive anymore anywhere. It threatens friends and foes alike. It destroys
international organizations and order. It supports the creation of chaos, as in Syria or Libya or Yemen.
The contrast of America's now-constant threats and hostilities with China's great Belt and Rail Initiative
couldn't be starker. Or with Putin's pragmatic "live and let live" philosophy. We see destruction versus
creation. Coercion versus cooperation. Ignorance versus information. Darkness versus light.
So, Trump, with all of grotesqueries and lies, provides almost the perfect President.
Sorry, America, but that is a very great, if ugly, truth.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and
the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two
parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election
without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy .Then it should be possible to replace it, every
four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new
vigor, approximately the same basic policies." Carroll Quigley
And so it goes ..at least until enough people
start to understand/believe that the government is their enemy, never their friend , and that a completely
unlimited government [i.e. what we currently endure], regardless of who is president, will continue to take
more of their money and freedom away on a daily basis because:
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting
[central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams
which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
Sadly, it doesn't matter who we vote for as the jewing will continue unabated.
Proof of this is to always
ask, "Who benefits?"
And the answer is ALWAYS the jews, and the answer is NEVER white people.
Once you understand what the jews want, what their interests are, and you see that everything that happens
seems to be good for the jews, you realize that this awful system is anti-white to the core and it's been
engineered by the nose for the nose. There is no other way to explain the fact that the interests of white
people are NEVER honored. In fact, the interests of white people are not even given a passing thought.
I knew it was going south in a hurry when he moved into the white house and turned it into something resembling
a synagogue.
As an outsider, watching media reporting on American politics, I find myself wondering if I'm
not actually viewing Israeli political news. How do Americans not notice this?
Trump's supposed conflict with congress to get funding for the border wall is just a kosher psyop designed to
give off the illusion that he is fighting to uphold his campaign promises, when in reality he's just carrying
out the jews white genocidal program. He's no different than Obama. Black or white, they take orders from the
same political class: the Jews who control the money, the policies, and the media.
But what's most sickening
about all this is that the same congress that unanimously votes to give untold billions to Israel in foreign
military aid is now telling the American people that there is just not enough money to fund a border wall !
Israel first, America last, that's how congress works.
Why don't the Jews want a strong US border wall built ? Because the JEWS want to genocide White Christian
Americans through mass illegal immigration. Why ? Because non-white third world people have lower-iq's and are
easier for the Jews to control and make slaves out of.
( Destabilizing society for political gains- Offering stupid people free everything will always get votes, and
they know this. )
Funding for the US border wall could be solved overnight by removing Jewish control over the monetary system
and cancelling all foreign aid to Israel, but don't except that to happen anytime soon. Nothing has changed
since Trump has become president and nothing will. Illegal immigration, poverty, unemployment and wars will
accelerate under Trump because those are the natural consequences of following the orders of America hating
Jews. Trump isn't playing some 4d chess strategy and all those who still say this are blind, deaf and dumb. The
Jews are still in full control of the Federal Reserve and by extension the media, government, courts, law
enforcement, education etc. Stop living in a fantasy land and face the facts.
As it was with Bush,Clinton and Obama, the United States is still a vassal state of Israel and controlled by
the Jews. We cannot vote ourselves out of this situation. Democracy means Jewish control that breaks down to
which political candidate gets the most jewish money and jewish media coverage. The Jews pick our presidents,
it doesn't matter if a republican or democrat gets elected, each party is only concerned with advancing the
Jewish world government agenda.
@Priss Factor
Regarding Gen. Soleimani, a true martyr, you should have seen how insultingly the moronic ABC World News anchor
David Muir brought up the name of Gen. Soleimani at last night's DNC debate. And none of the candidates
bothered to correct Muir.
@Gleimhart Mantooso
Keep wallowing in hate and ignorance. Muslims are the only people outside of Christians who revere Jesus,
albeit not as god jr. but as as a mighty prophet.
For sure, Trump has been less than impressive on all fronts. At least he hasn't committed the US to an all-out
war with Iran, but I strongly suspect he will do so after he is re-elected.
As far as
actual
unemployment, January 2020 remains at a stable 21% and all the bs about 3.5% is the usual smoke-and-mirrors:
I think the establishment is once again giving the American voter no real alternatives (but isn't that the
point?). Do you want Trump or a Jewish communist, Trump or Indiana's little Peewee Buttfudge? Whatever. The
final result will always be "X" is president in a White House filled with zionists. Everything American
crumbles while the Israelis continue the dance they started on 9/11.
Machiavelli wrote that the best people to take power are not the best people to run the government. The
implication is precisely that: use the chumps and then discard them.
Despite all the technology, some things
haven't changed.
@Divine Right
" My read of the situation is that Donald Trump is almost certainly going to lose the general election, despite
the confident predictions of an incoming Trumpslide by deluded supporters. In his defeat, he'll take the last
vestiges of Reagan conservatism down with him "
Your comment is very interesting. While I didn't like it
emotionally. Intellectually it was excellent.
I have all of the same complaints as Brad Griffin. I have to admit my perfidy as I have at times believed in
Q and other times I haven't. Right now I'm at the, we'll see, stage as I have no idea what is going to happen
and if he so wished Trump could fall on the deep State like a bear trap. If he is going to do this then the
delay til he can get in a more honest set of judges and push out some the worst of the actors makes sense. Even
his wishy washy staffing the place to the gills with Jews and inconsistent policies. He has several times
stated positions and done things that have put his enemies in very awkward positions that are difficult to
weasel out of. He could still take down portions of the deep State. We'll have to see but I admit it doesn't
look good.
Former CIA head William Casey once said, and it is verified, something like that when no one knows what the
truth is the CIA had done it's job. I think we are at that stage now.
If Trump does not reign in the deep State, meaning the Jews for all practical purposes, or even if he loses
the election I suspect strongly that a vast tsunami of Whites will instantly lose faith in government. I think
it likely that if Trump loses it will be a psychic shock.
If Trump has no plan to take on the deep State and Q is just a deep State actor to delay the day of
reckoning I hope Trump does lose.
There's a path, a very scary one, that may be what Q is all about if he is a deep State actor. Computer
power has continued to increase combined with neural nets computing. The time line for a $1,000 computer chip
with the computing power of a human is 2025. It may be off by a little but it will happen. If when this happens
and the Jews are still in control they could, combined with 5G, build what ever robot army they wished for
around 10 or 20 thousand dollars a piece and murder us all. Elon Musk global network in space would also allow
them global dominance. I've always been suspicious of Elon being a Jew while supporting what he is doing as
being good for the country. When he immigrated to Canada from South Africa he first had a job at a bank
supposedly with one of this relatives. He also has been extremely capable in raising vast sums of capital. Jews
are much more able to do this due to nepotism. He denies being a Jew.
Trump is very much a chump and a liar, as pretty much every president has been from the beginning. This will
include supposed great presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, Teddy and FD Roosevelt, Reagan, Obama, and yes, even
the vaunted JFK.
The problem is and always has been "Murkans" find themselves a political party and basically sign up for
life. They never seem to learn no matter who is put into office, the slow slide to a full blown Marxist type
Oligarchy marches on. I cannot fathom why people go to political rallies and wave and cheer for known liars and
charlatans, hanging on their every promise as if it came from God himself.
Nothing is ever going to change in this country until the corporate money is eliminated from politics, until
lobbying for political favors is made illegal, until BOTH corrupt political parties currently running America
are shown the ash heap of history, AND until people realize there is more politics than marking a ballot.
This country will only be made well when the citizens start attending city, county, and state government
meetings and demand the constitution be upheld. Without our involvement at every level of government, it is
easy for the shysters and crooks to grow fat through graft and corruption.
The choice is ours and ours alone, but if history is any indicator of what will be, I say we be in deep
shit.
Bull shit. Blatant lie. 2017 saw a 10% decrease in net migration from 1046 million to 930 million. 2018
down another 25% to 700 million, and 2019 15% to 600 million. That's God damn good work for a man with an
entire bureaucracy and 2 parties fighting him
Where's the link for this claim? At the 2019 SOTU Trump bragged that immigrants would be coming to the USA
in "the largest numbers ever" under his administration.
Candidate Trump vowed to end H1B visas but president Trump now supports expanding the program. Candidate
Trump vowed to deport Dreamers and all other illegal aliens. Candidate Trump says he'll work with Congress to
allow Dreamers to stay in the U.S. and avoid deportation.
But most of all, you ignored the fact that the entire intelligence apparatus, the entire media, the
entire establishment has sacrificed their credibility in the attack on Trump.
Outside of a few of exceptions like Comey, Strzok and McCabe there's been almost no consequences for any
crazy leftists or deep state operatives for attacking Trump. At most, some (((MSM))) talking heads have
suffered decreased viewership, but that hasn't slowed them down one iota while the FBI has viciously retaliated
against high profile Trump supporters like Mike Flynn and Roger Stone.
I thought Trump was going to go after Hillary if elected and "lock her up?" That was just one of his many
lies and dog whistles.
Yes, Trump is an idiot I know well. I spent a day with him.
The real problem has been, when we have a
candidate that would be good for America, the Jews and the Jewish controlled media destroy him, and the people
do not react appropriately.
Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader all offered their talents for the job. See what happened?
Trump is not the problem. He's the symptom.
Go after the root.
Gerhard Menuhin understood this well enough he named his book accordingly.
Because life is relatively short, the people adapt a "go along to get along" mentality. They fear losing
their rice bowl (job) so they act like coolies (slaves).
People need to change the essential failing thinking only of themselves.
Better to be a martyr once than a slave 10,000 times.
Since both parties are hopelessly corrupt enemies of the people, I vote third party if I can, so I didn't vote
for Trump but I was glad he beat Hillary, because Hillary was a known evil, and Trump? I liked his campaign
promises, to make friends with Russia, to get out of NATO, to stop the "stupid" Mideast wars, to echo Lindbergh
by his motto "America First", which promised a kind of paleo-conservative "isolationism", i.e., stay home, mind
our own business, stop policing the world with regime-change wars. I wrote off his Border Fence as unworkable.
And he started off well. He called most TV news Fake News. He said Media was "the enemy of the people". Wow!
What other politician told such a truth? He met with Putin in Helsinki and believed Putin's word over his own
"Intelligence", and Wow!, again. But it didn't last. His enemies were after him (Russia! Russia! Russia!) from
Day One, and after the Putin meeting FBI and CIA and Media all called him a TRAITOR! Media bad-mouthed him 24/7
for months, and I believe Trump finally caved, joined our enemies in the Swamp he had promised to drain,
because he didn't have the balls to stand up to the constant, unrelenting pressure on him. His first choices
for Secty of State,of Defense, were okay, but then he hired the awful Bolton and then the noxious Pompeo, he
surrounded himself with the loyal-to-Israel Neocons, and now Netanyahu is our President, not Trump.
So he has
become just another enemy of the people. If Bernie is screwed out of the Dem nomination, as he was last time, I
hope he starts a Third Party, with Ron Paul as his Vice, and Tulsi Gabbard as Secty of State.
@Gizmo880
Add to that, who would champion any of these changes in either chamber of Congress? This article perfectly
reflects the adolescent whining that permeates the unz site that everything is not going exactly as I want.
You deserve to be drunk on the junk offered by the Drumpf a narcissistic hedonist from Manhattan in real
estate business (where 9 out of 10 largest real estate enterprises are owned by Jews), who was desperate at
times to hold on to that thing which is most dear to him, the title of unmitigated billionaire, and which could
not be hold on to without the blessings of the Central Park "rabbis" and one who had married non-native white
women of dubious origin (possibly Jewish), at least 2 out of 3 times and a man who wasn't known for his
christian (assuming he is one) piety or charity was suddenly the savior of the White nationalists.
You're
right about one thing: give a drowning (White nationalist) man enough rope and he will hang himself!
@nsa
Trumpstein actually did something about the H1B visa program .he increased it claiming we need more of
these half priced "brainiacs". Can't find enough discount American code scribblers, you know.
Bingo.
BTW, back in the mid 00s when I had certifications in C# programming and SQL, my phone was literally ringing
off the hook with job offers and I never went more than 1 week without a contract job. In the following years
working for a large company in the industry, I gained even more experience in other things in IT that
interested me such as machine learning, parallel programming and cloud computing.
When that company went south in 2016 I lost my job. Furiously searching for a job, it took NINE months
before I landed another. When I talked with all the local head-hunting contractor firms and IT placement
companies, they all told me the same story: all the local companies are pretty much only hiring H1B's now in
their IT departments.
Absolutely disgusting.
That along with many other things that I've seen since 2016 have convinced me that my children have no
future here in this shithole country.
In the final two years of the Obama administration (2015 and 2016), the Alt-Right was thriving on social
media and was brimming with energy.
Yes, in service to Hillary and the Democrats. Not all who called themselves alt-right, but beyond question
it was a "movement" that was and still is wholly compromised. I know it's hard for you to hear, and despite
whatever else he peddled, Freud was on to something when it came to Projection.
It doesn't surprise me that this author has memory-holed his movement's high water mark -- Hillary's
alt-right speech. Throughout the 2016 campaign, while little went Hillary's way, she consistently drew royal
straight flushes, with David Duke, Richard Spencer and various other agents-provocateur, going on CNN and MSNBC
declaring their support for Trump.
Here's your buddy Richard Spencer days after Trump won the election:
A word to the wise, anyone who didn't know to whom this character belongs, and long before this moment,
should assiduously avoid the word 'chump.'
I won't paint with a broad brush. To the extent that anyone cares, it was and remains rather easy to figure
out which in the so-called alt-right can't be trusted. Whether because the FBI or someone else has them by the
short-hairs, or they're Leninist/Stalinist filth doing their part for the cause.
That includes those writing articles like this, lamenting that Trump betrayed you after you voted for him by
being a great president for African Americans too.
Timing is rarely coincidental. Thus this jibber jabber comes just after Trump defeated the latest coup
attempt and even Democrat allied-media is finally forced to begin to concede that he'll win reelection.
Trump will do so with historic support from blacks and Hispanics (for a Republican). Which is why Democrats
and their allied-media are again feverishly pushing their "white nationalist" button again.
Any day now the "GOD EMPEROR (!!!)" is going to "UNLEASH THE STORM!!!"
Oh, yeah, sure some Jews get beat up in midtown Manhattan and Trump swings into action quicker than whale
shit thru an ice floe passing EOs that end up practically paving the way to make it illegal to criticize Jews
Um, OK he sure was quick and decisive for them.
But surely he will get around to doing something for the goys too!!!
The reasons why I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were immigration, trade, foreign policy, political
correctness and campaign finance and furthering these big ideas of "nationalism" and "populism."
Well then you
are
a chump. The only tactical reason to have voted for Trump was
to deny Hillary
Clinton executive power
. That was the sole reason any conservative or rightist had to participate in Our
National Sham. To believe that he was going to reintroduce "nigger" to the national lexicon by 2018 was
head-in-the-clouds foolishness.
Thwarting Soros/Hillary remains his major contribution* to American politics: under Trump, the masks on the
other side have all come off. There is no longer any subterfuge about the Unholy Trinity of the Far Left,
meaning the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and the hostage institutions such as academia and
local/state government. The rabid doubling-down of the anti-white Deep State – unthinkable with a nabob like
McConnell or Romney in the Oval Office – is another plus to the Trump Administration: what the talking heads
all nervously refer to as the "deep divisions" in our country is one of the few signs of mental health and
vitality America has experienced in a half-century's worth of decline.
Nobody was going to reverse that half-century in three or four years – it was a physical impossibility; just
as no one was going to pry off Team Shmuel's death-grip without at least pretending not to. Ten
years
would be insufficient for such tasks. But it doesn't mean you petulantly vow to starve yourself because half a
loaf is an insult.
*= it's rarely brought up but his quietly appointing centrist/conservative judges to the bench, boring as it
may seem to tiki-torch revolutionaries, still represents an important step in the right direction and is
probably his
second
major contribution to the struggle,
Trump is the reincarnation of the Roman emperor Caligula and the present government of the ZUS is a
reincarnation of the later days of the Roman empire, in every way!
@MattinLA
America has faced problem like this in the past It will solve the problem in similar or identical terms . Thats
what it does It provides a ruse . Now the ruse is not covering the corners of the lying lips even before next
set of problems emerge straight from the solution.
Trump isn't a god and there's so much to criticize about his track record, all true. But at minimum, Trump did
delay the socialist takeover of the federal judiciary. As disgusting as his kowtowing has been of the neocons
that control the Deep State, the invasion of Iran has still yet to materialize. How would a Hillary presidency
have fared with Scalia's replacement and a no-fly zone over Syria? Good bye First and Second Amendment. The
alternative to Trump is grim.
@Tom Welsh
As bad as Trumpstein is, and make no mistake, the cuckold for Coco-Zionists is bad, Clinton and company would
have been even worse. In 2020 we have anti-White demsheviks like Butt-Plug, the first openly homosexual
candidate for Prez, Warren, Biden and flat out commie Jew, Sanders, and Jew Bloomberg. I guess the Jew is ready
to come out of the shadows and openly run for Prez just like homosexual Butt-Plug. Of course it could be said
that we have a Jew as POTUS right now, President Baby Nut&Yahoo and his VP Jared Kushner.
The biggest thing
Trumpstein has done as Prez is expose how fake the Jew media is, but lets not kid ourselves, with the exception
of Tucker Carlson ( even Tucker doesn't tell the total truth and he won't touch the JQ) even the neocons at FOX
and OAN don't tell the complete truth, and sometimes they do more harm by telling 90% truth and 10% lies than
commie anti-White networks like CNN, MSNBC and all the rest.
Trumpstein is a native New Yorker, what did you really expect?? The guy has been around criminal Jews all
his life, he has Jew lawyers, his daughter has converted to Judaism and she married an orthodox Jew. As bad as
our past Presidents were, some claim LBJ, FDR, and even Eisenhower might have been Jews or had Jewish blood
flowing through their shabbos goy veins, Trump might be the biggest cuckold yet when it comes to the biggest
shabbos goy Prez of all time.
Until a UNITED STATES PRESIDENT OR OFFICIAL GOES AFTER GEORGE SOROS AND THE LIKE AND SERIOUSLY SEEKS TO
IMPRISON HIM AND OTHERS FOR FLOODING OUR COUNTRY WITH ILLEGAL INVADERS, WE DON'T HAVE A LEGIT PRESIDENT.
Do you think Hitler would have stood by and allowed non-Germans or traitorous Germans to flood Germany with
Turks or Pakis and then went out and told throngs of people how he is keeping Germany first? Come on, man.
Trump is better than the alternative, BUT the new boss isn't much different than the old boss. Just another
cuckold influenced by his Jewish masters and Jewish money.
@Priss Factor
It's amusing to read the rabid Trump haters on the right. They have a better option?
Some of the Trump haters
say we should just let the whole thing burn down and that Trump is controlled opposition delaying the
inevitable and preferred civil war. These are people that won't give up their Netflix, won't give up whatever
outlet Game of Thrones is on and won't even put down their IPhone. It's absurd.
Trump is a fat-assed, baby boomer politician whore for the evil and immoral globalizer treasonites in the
JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire.
Trump has been screaming like a three dollar whore politician
about flooding the USA with mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever."
Trump has refused to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
Trump has kept the American Empire garrisons and bases forward deployed and stuck in muck hole regions of
the globe.
Trump has put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the American Empire.
Trump is a bought and paid for three dollar whore politician for Jew billionaires Shelly Adelson and Paul
Singer and Bernie Marcus and other billionaire bastards.
Trump has kept his fat mouth shut about the Fed-created and monetary policy induced asset bubbles in stocks,
bonds and real estate. In 2016, fat ass baby boomer bastard Trumpy was calling these same damn asset bubbles
nothing but "fat, ugly bubbles." In 2016 Trump said "we are in a big, fat, ugly bubble" and the asset bubbles
in stocks, bonds and real estate are only bigger and uglier and fatter now.
I hereby challenge baby boomer fat ass Trumpy -- and Teddy Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dan Crenshaw, Tom Cotton and
any other GOP puke who wants to show up -- to a debate on mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration,
tax policy, trade policy, foreign policy, monetary policy, American national identity, multicultural mayhem,
White Genocide and any other damn thing.
Vote for CHARLES PEWITT as a Write-In candidate for president in New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina
and every other state presidential primary.
Charles Pewitt Immigration Pledge:
IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!
DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!
REMOVE THE FOREIGNERS NOW!
REMOVE ALL WHITES OR OTHERS THAT ARE HOSTILE TO THE EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN ANCESTRAL CORE OF THE USA
Ban The Bat Soup Fever People Now!
The Charles Pewitt write-in campaign for president of the USA has called for the immediate implementation of
a BAT SOUP FEVER BAN which will quarantine the rest of the world, including Canada and Mexico. All foreigners
currently occupying US territory will be immediately removed and they will be put on barges with baloney
sandwiches for sustenance on their long voyage back to wherever the Hell they came from. Those who have
deliberately shredded their identification -- like Pelosi shredding Trumpy's speech -- shall be put in a baloney
sandwich camp in sub-Saharan Africa and kept there indefinitely.
The Charles Pewitt write-in campaign for president has stated numerous times that open borders mass legal
immigration and open borders mass illegal immigration brings infectious diseases to the USA and this new
fangled BAT SOUP FEVER is just EBOLA with more sniffles and the walking pneumonia and the boogie woogie bat
soup fever blues.
The Charles Pewitt ban on the Bat Soup Fever People, plus all the other foreigners for good measure, will
bring massive benefits to the American people.
The Charles Pewitt ban on all foreigners in combination with a massive removal of all foreigners in the USA
will boost wages, lower housing costs, reduce income inequality, lower class sizes, protect the environment,
restore cultural cohesion, give US workers more bargaining power, reduce belly fat, reduce commuting times,
provide relief for overwhelmed hospitals and be good for regular Americans and bad for globalizer banker
money-grubbing nasty people.
The Charles Pewitt presidency will extinguish all student loan debt and pay back all student loan debt ever
paid plus 6 percent interest accrued yearly.
The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion will grant each American citizen with all blood ancestors born in colonial
America or in the USA before 1924 the sum of ten thousand dollars a month -- tax free.
The Pewitt Tax Pledge will abolish the payroll tax and reduce federal income taxes substantially for all
Americans making below 300, 000 dollars a year. Billionaires will be declared illegal and they will be
financially liquidated and the federal corporate tax rate shall be 80 percent and 100 percent for all
corporations that have gone offshore.
God Bless America And Ban The Bat Soup Fever People Now!
Write In CHARLES PEWITT For President On Your Ballot -- God Bless The USA!
@Divine Right
If the Democrats have Pete steal the nominatin, then you can be sure they want to give Trump the election. I
dont think they control Bliombverg, more likely, he controls them so I would call him a wild card. Sanders
would win the election, but as you can see in Iowa, the criminals running the DNC, aka Hillary, are a much
bigger threat to him then Trump.
@Charles Pewitt
And you actually think that guy has a legit shot at winning? And you actually think he will be able to keep all
of his promises? The more I learn about what Hitler had to overcome to become Chancellor of Germany, you
realize that men like Hitler are rare and only come along once every couple hundreds of years. And Germany
wasn't mixed with every kind of brown and yellow race under the Sun either, America is a different animal
altogether. I am not sure if even a man like Hitler could turn America around in 2020. It will take A LOT OF
WORK TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, odds are unless we do a 180% turn, America is going out with a whimper and
sooner rather than later.
@alex in San Jose AKA Digital
Detroit
Net immigration has definitely NOT been outward. Both legal and illegal migration into the USA are still
massive, larger than the outflow from all appearances. The net result, and this is without reference to the
race or color or religion of the wave of immigrants:
a more crowded, more polluted, more expensive, less
trusting society where tens of millions of people cannot communicate effectively with each other in English and
US citizens whose families have been here for generations or even a couple centuries have a harder and harder
time finding full-time jobs with decent pay, benefits, and HAHA a pension.
@Chet Roman
After the last 3 years of seditious behavior of lying politicians like
Schiff
,
Nadler
and
Pelosi and the traitorous schemes of deep state actors like
Weismann, Vindman, Sondland
and
Yovanovitch
While I agree with your main point, what are you going to do? Vote for lil' Mike Bloomberg? Mayor Pete? LOL.
These clowns are completely controlled. Yes this system has boxed us in but Trump at least gives the illusion
of revolt, and he still isn't 100% controlled, only 99%.(Grin) Others will have to pick up the mantle of revolt
against the 'Deep State' when he is gone.
For the time being thankfully Tucker Carlson, Rand Paul and other America First types will be pushing Trump to
follow his campaign promises, however little he actually does. Because the alternative, Biden, Bloomberg, the
mayor Pete & company, is considerably worse.
The main strikes against Trump are 1. His even more fawning than
anticipated towards the Zionist beast. But most of that was predictable however regrettable. 2. His
acquiescence to the Republi'tard tax cuts which has only benefited the rich. The Republicans lost big in the
mid terms because of those cuts but 'lo and behold' Trump was still there. 3. All the other shit-lib policies
that Trump ignored or even supported, like increases in 'legal' immigration. That's the fault of his dopey
daughter and her weird Zionist/Orthodox Jew husband. With the son-in-law's one sided
'Deal of the Century'
falling flat on its face, hopefully this will hasten the moving of said weird son-in-law and dopey daughter
back to NYC 'one'. Then hopefully Trump will turn to advice from the likes of Carlson and Paul who will appeal
to his inner America First soul.
@Ragno
Thwarting Soros/Hillary remains his major contribution* to American politics: under Trump, the masks on the
other side have all ""
How has he exactly ?
Soros and Hillary occupy certain positions . Now they are gone but taken over by some other guys and gals .
It's a job . New employees still haven't been awarded the best employee award yet . That will come at the
retirement for the next set of people to carry on with the same anonymity.
We all know PNAC. How many will bother to know what the new letter head organizations the same crazy bunch
are heading now with new faces ?
Whether it is the openly anti-White demshevik candidate who wins or Trump, it is a win-win for the Jew. And our
demshevik buddies have already hinted at locking up any White who might have the temerity to whine about his or
her countries being flooded with browns, yellows and other hues of hostile third world biological weapons of
mass destruction or God any White who blasphemes the self avowed "masters of the universe" who control
America's media, much of our judicial system, and apparently own all of our serious candidates for POTUS should
face imprisonment according to some of these certifiable cuckold nutjobs. As I commented earlier, Hitler wasn't
some mentally disturbed madman who munched on carpet when enraged, he was a brilliant and brave man, but even
Hitler didn't have to overcome the odds that anyone elected as the American President has to overcome. The
Jewish dream of making America a polyglot of every kind of race under the sun with more colors than a rainbow
has become true. Hitler only had the Jew to worry about for the most part, while the American President has to
tackle not only Jewish power and influence, he has a country full of Chinese, Arabs, East Indians, Africans,
Hispanics of all sorts, just your common everyday African American with a chip on his shoulder the size of a
boulder, and all other assorted groups of malcontents demanding handouts while at the same time cursing our
nation and thinking Whitey owes them something for nothing.
Jan 20, 2017 Here's how much debt the US government added under President Obama
Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the end of 2008 – just before Obama took
office – stood at roughly $10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent data available,
the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at $19,573,445,000,000.
@Trinity
The USA will thrive like never before after doing two simple things:
3 measly little hikes to the federal
funds rate and remove all the foreigners and the spawn of the foreigners.
The Pewitt presidential administration shall order the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank to raise
the federal funds rate from the current level below 2 percent to 6 percent and then to 10 percent and then to
20 percent. This whole series of asset bubbles the last 40 years can be traced back to 1981 when the federal
funds rate was 20 percent. Deliberate asset bubble implosions now!
Implode the asset bubbles and financially liquidate the greedy White nation wreckers born before 1965.
Young White Core Americans must be free of the DEBT BOMB MILLSTONE destroying their future and their
country.
The Pewitt presidential administration shall order the Fed to begin contracting the Fed's balance sheet and
there will be a complete halt to dollar swaps and liquidity injections and all the other monetary extremism
crud that keeps the asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate inflated.
The Pewitt presidential administration shall order the immediate implementation of an immigration moratorium
and will begin the immediate deportation of all 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA. All foreigners
and their spawn shall be immediately removed from the USA and the members of the Deportation Force that puts
this policy into action will get 1 million dollars a year for their patriotic efforts.
Politics in the USA Distilled For My Fellow Americans:
DEBT and DEMOGRAPHY
Monetary Policy
Immigration Policy
The USA must get back to a population of 220 million like it was in 1978.
After Iowa, i'm unclear why anyone still thinks the DNC is interested in making any sort of meaningful change
to our system towards socialism; rest assured they are not. They blatantly committed election fraud to support
the mayor from the CIA, Pete. If he fails, they will put their full support behind Bloomberg, the very
definition of a right wing candidate. The threat to our ruling class is not Trump, its Sanders.
Trump
supports Israel, billionaires, Big Corporations, wars for Oil, Wall Street and so will the DNC candidates Pete
and Bloomberg. The rest are just wedge issues to give the masses the illusion of choice.
Anyone who believes that Donald Trump was serious about reducing our military adventurism
is deluding themselves.
The theme of forcing other countries to support our aims is central to his foreign
policy, and he escalates all conflicts in hopes of forcing others to concede. None of that
was hidden during 2016. It's also consistent with how his businesses have treated small
vendors. The Trump you see is not some creation of the deep state, or a product of
aggressive investigations. It's the Trump that has always been there. He's a bully. He's
always been a bully, and he always will be a bully.
You might have missed the evidence in 2016, but you can't pretend in 2020 that Trump is
the guy who will minimize the use of force to accomplish his goals.
But how else will the US force the other countries to renounce their sovereign status and
relinquish their economies to the extractive, parasitic greed of Wall Street? Andrew
Mellon's brother, Richard, used to say that being in the business of steel making, one
needs a machine gun... When one seeks to be the Hegemon (ultimate monopolist), one needs
"full spectrum dominance"!
"We need to recognize that our hyper-militarized foreign policy achieves nothing except to
foment more conflict that kills and displaces innocent people in huge numbers."
That's called a "self-licking ice cream cone". The more you spend on something to fix
something else, it only causes an increase in the something else, which causes you to have
to spend more. It is the entire basis of the US defense, healthcare and legal markets.
The diehard Trump fans placed too much hope and faith in the miscreant's foreign policy. They
thought voting for the buffoon was a way of securing rapprochement with Russia and less
militarism. Let's face it, in 2016 the two nominees were reprehensible–there was NO
good choice. The electorate could choose the terrible warmonger Hillary, who would accelerate
Obama's imperialist policies against Russia, China, and the Middle East or they could vote
for the "phony" supposed non-interventionist.
The bottomline as always is that the "winner" is completely subjugated to the foreign
policy whims of the security/surveillance state. It's naive to think otherwise. During the
last three years there's been an internal conflict between various factions of the
military/security/ surveillance state, but generally speaking they've done quite well under
Trump. In fact, when it comes to foreign policy it's almost as if Hillary had been elected
..
I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I'm a little worried about Donald Trump. I'm
worried he may be on the verge of a sudden, major heart attack, or a stroke, or a fatal golfing
accident.
Food poisoning is another possibility. Or he could overdose on prescription medication. A
tanning bed mishap is not out of the question.
He could accidentally hang himself during autoerotic asphyxiation, or get shot by a
lone-wolf white supremacist terrorist trying to start the RaHoWa. The Russians could spray him
with that Novichok perfume.
There are any number of ways he could snuff it.
I don't mean to sound alarmist, but the Resistance is running out of non-lethal options for
removing Donald Trump from office. Here they are, in no particular order
Cute, but seriously: Trump has been pretty much hammered into toeing the party line. The
oligarchy still doesn't like him, and it has taken a lot of effort to reign in him, but
rhetoric aside he's currently governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have. The borders are
still open to illegal immigrants and the rich have their cheap labor, we're still wasting
trillions on pointless winless foreign wars, our manufacturing base is pretty much hollowed
out, we're still shoveling trillions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies to Wall
Street, big medicine is still busy with organized looting ('surprise medical billing',
anyone?), you get the idea.
Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. The 2020 election looks to be yet another heads
they win/tails we lose circus. Trump is in no danger, IMHO.
Unless Bernie gets the nomination. Now there's a politician that needs to worry about his
health
You're overlooking the obvious contingency plan for the Dems: Biden will recruit Terry Crews
or Tiny Lister for his VP candidate. Of course the Veep will have to dress transgender and
change their name to Cornpop, but that's a small price to pay. The future of the country is
at stake.
It has become clear to Bernie's supporters that they and the Deplorables have the same
enemies. The more the media demonize Bernie in the same way they demonize Trump the stronger
Bernie will become. Bernie doesn't need to be in Iowa. CNN and the NYT are working for him.
Fake news is also stupid news.
CJ Hopkins has to be one of the best political commentators alive today. His writing is
both hilarious and profound. No easy fete.
Yes, absolutely exquisite use of the language to ridicule the ridiculous "resistance."
Clearly, Andy Kaufmann (aka Latka Gravis) did not die: he slinked away to politics and
took on the mantle of Schifty the Popeyed Crackpot California Congressman.
Hopkins entertainingly finds the black humor in all of this -- but none of it is funny, even
darkly so -- the reason it isn't funny is that millions of decent, hard-working Americans are
chained to this amoral freak show via the coercive tax system.
Well nothing of value would be lost Trump hasn't drained the swamp, locked her up, or built
the wall. In fact the only people that have been arrested are Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.
I was going to add a string of "lols" tied together, but this place is classier than that.
Honestly it might be a good thing, because then Pence would be president. Think about it,
then the Evangelicals who the GoP relies on their vote, but have also been strung along for
decades getting none of the social issues addressed while, and then also being blamed for
everything from war in the Middle East to every social problem. I think it would be good for
them to see the righteous avatar Pence ascend to the throne, and then completely shun and
ignore them. Maybe that will finally wake them up.
When/where did he ever talk about reducing the Federal government to its original
constitutional functions? Never.
When/where did he ever talk about re-enforcing the Bill of Rights on the Feds? Never.
When/where did he ever talk about getting rid of the income tax and the IRS? Never.
When/where did he ever talk about getting rid of the FBI, the CIA, the Federal Reserve,
the NSA, the FDA, the CDC, the EPA [all unconstitutional] etc.etc. etc. ad infinitum? Never,
that's when.
He's just another in a long line of big-mouthed, self-important scam artists –
always, was, and always will be.
I feel sorry for the naive individuals who were fooled, and those who continue to be
fooled. Maybe at least some of them have now learned a valuable lesson.
@TG I said over a
year ago, around the time this Orange Cuck Master gave that SOTU speech and reversed almost
every policy promise he made to his 63 million supporters on his #1 most important issue,
i.e., the border wall, deporting illegals, ending DACA on day one, drastically reducing legal
immigration – which is even more destructive to the future of the GOP to win any more
elections than is illegal immigration, the whole package that got people off their sofas and
down to the polls to vote for him – that it was obvious to me that the globalist deep
state had finally gotten their hands on some kind of leverage over him and had finally put
their dog collar around his Orange lying neck.
Was it related to Jeffrey Epstein? Who knows. I'm sure it is possible, with the way
degenerate behavior seems to now run amok within the super rich and elitist circles. Heck,
the morals of the entire country have pretty much descended into the sewer these days.
I think we are in the last days of this empire's history. I see no White knight waiting in
the wings who will ride to the rescue, and if one did emerge – only half of the country
would support them and the other half of totalitarian, sexual and moral degenerates would
want to kill him.
What we need is a collapse and breakup of America.
@Nancy O'Brien
Simpson Sept 24, 2019: "The future does not belong to the globalists." -Donald
Trump declares during his speech to UN General Assembly
Sept 24 later that day: "The President must be held accountable" -Nancy Pelosi
declares during her official launch of impeachment inquiry
Globalism is the ideological, economic and political platform thru which the 'Empire of
the 0.1%' best achieves the looting and subjugation of the rest.
So in spite of all his other offerings to them, the Elites still desperately want Trump
out. That's why.
The "Crush Bernie" movement is just getting started, but you can tell the Resistance
isn't screwing around. Hillary Clinton just officially launched her national "Nobody Likes
Bernie" campaign at the star-studded 2020 Sundance Film Festival. Influential Jewish
journalists like Bari Weiss and Jeffrey Goldberg, and Ronald Lauder's newly-founded
Anti-Semitism Accountability Project, have been Hitlerizing him, or, rather, Corbynizing
him. Obama has promised to "stop him," if necessary. MSNBC anchor Joy Reid brought on a
professional "body language expert" to phrenologize Sanders "live" on the air and, as I
said, they're just getting started.
Considering that nearly everything described happened to Trump in a similar manner. So two
ways of looking at this: Bernie should be able to easily get above this since Trump managed
to win despite a similar campaign, or accepting that Bernie is screwed and wonder if Trump
was initially treated fairly.
@Dutch Boy I like
some of Bernie's political stances, there are two of them, only two. But, they pale into
insignificance in comparison to the near hundred of other utterly inane and unworkable
political stances / policies which he advocates.
I'm a pretty run of the mill American. And, I'm an independent voter, although I lean
conservative. So, I don't believe my below expressed assessment and prediction is anything
but mainstream.
Bernie's toast and he's toast even without what appears to be a very concerted campaign by
the elites and the Democrats (hahaha, a distinction without a difference) to end any chance
that he'll be nominated.
As the author correctly points out, Trump will be re-elected if he survives the next 9
months to stand for re-election.
That said, Mr. Trump appears to be willing to betray his 2016 campaign position on
opposing America's endless wars as he appears to be willing to start a war with Iran. I feel
betrayed. If I'd have wanted more foreign wars and/or the deepening of already existing
foreign wars I'd have voted for Killary.
So, although I'll vote in the 2020 Federal elections, I'll leave the check boxes for
President on the ballot unchecked.
Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning:
"For a guy who couldn't get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn't get
approved for anything since, 'begged' me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him
despite many saying 'Don't do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on T.V.,
and ... many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to
him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty &
untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?"
IMO, Trump is a fantastic POTUS for this day and age, but he wasn't on his A game when he
brought Bolton onboard. He should have known better and, was, apparently, warned. Maybe Trump
thought he could control him and use him as a threatening pit bull. Mistake. Bolton is greedy
as well as vindictive.
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander
Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces
from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the
president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.
Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained
from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson
declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn
the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed
the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power
over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?"
he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend
of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."
By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was
on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton
is absolutely a hawk,"
Trump
told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.
The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs,
much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump
for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The
idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true,"
Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone
strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were
reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former
CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's
"decisive action." It was Carlson
who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades,"
Carlson said . "They
still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the
national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet
another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals
in the region -- a central part of his
2020 reelection bid
.
The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose
declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was
revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of
The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War,
asked , "Did
Trump betray the anti-war right?"
In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.
Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign
policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien,
Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian
Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators
Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked
up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with
Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In
June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian
opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? --
regime change.
The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind
Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of
war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by
causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.
Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual
complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its
hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in
the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even
if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant
of the Oval Office.
But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional
state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and
how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the
late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the
Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship
between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives,
mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot
of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."
At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies
that might once have seemed outré. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards,"
essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders
such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies,
while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and
liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for
her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable
for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose
the red menace.
The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré.
There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His
sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major
speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end
the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning
days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan
was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence
and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market
economics and American firepower.
The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History
appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9,
1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it
as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons,
led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being
menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word
from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global
order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons'
resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been
regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon "
amen corner" in and around the
Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons
were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked
the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then
ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's
dark horse run in 2016.
But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy
wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert
Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently
pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian
fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In
his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen
stated , "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."
We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three
and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented
neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of
democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The neocons'
hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.
But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced
his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere
to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.
The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump
movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became
president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve
Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019, as Trump's special envoy to Venezuela,
where he has pushed for regime change). Not a few other members of the Republican foreign policy establishment suffered similar fates.
Kristol's The Weekly Standard, which had held the neoconservative line through the Bush years and beyond , folded
in 2018. Even the office building that used to house the American Enterprise Institute and the Standard, on the corner of
17th and M streets in Washington, has been torn down, leaving an empty, boarded-up site whose symbolism speaks for itself.
Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued
to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers
in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have
done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the
movement.
It was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell.
But other neocons -- the ones who want to wield positions of influence and might -- have, more often than not, been able to hold
their noses. Stephen Wertheim, writing in The New York Review of Books, has perceptively dubbed this faction the anti-globalist
neocons. Led by John Bolton, they believe Trump performed a godsend by elevating the term globalism "from a marginal slur
to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics,"
Wertheim argued . The U.S. need not
bother with pesky multilateral institutions or international agreements or the entire postwar order, for that matter -- it's now
America's way or the highway.
And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian,
and Iraq War–era figures like
David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser,
the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't
care less if they negotiate,"
he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize
the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former
editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review ,
rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle
for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding
from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White
House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is
a myth."
In other words, whether the neocons themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant. The
ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard pressed to resist it -- if he even wants to.
How were the neocons able to influence another Republican presidency, one that was ostensibly dedicated to curbing their sway?
One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the
tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of
gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for
example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away"
from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. The event was hosted by Michael Doran, a
former senior director on George W. Bush's National Security Council and a senior fellow at the institute, who
wrote in
The New York Times on January 3, "The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check
Iran's military power on the ground." Then there's Jamie M. Fly, a former staffer to Senator Marco Rubio who was appointed this past
August to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; he previously co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs contending that it isn't enough to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities: "If the United States seriously considers military action,
it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially
resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all."
Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has
popped up to warn Trump against
trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle
East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any
others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War
and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000.
But there are plenty of institutions in Washington, and neoconservatism's seemingly inescapable influence cannot be chalked up
to the swamp alone. Some etiolated form of what might be called Ledeenism lingered on before taking on new life at the outset of
the Trump administration. Trump's overt animus toward Muslims, for example, meant that figures such as Frank Gaffney, who opposed
arms-control treaties with Moscow as a member of the Reagan administration and resigned in protest of the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty, achieved a new prominence. During the Obama administration, Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy,
claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House and National Security Agency.
Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a
creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world: "We're in a world
war against a messianic mass movement of evil people." It was one of many signs that Trump was susceptible to ideas of a civilizational
battle against
"Islamo-fascism,"
which Norman Podhoretz and other neocons argued, in the wake of 9/11, would lead to World War III. In their millenarian ardor
and inflexible support for Israel, the neocons find themselves in a position precisely cognate to evangelical Christians -- both
groups of true believers trying to enact their vision through an apostate. But perhaps the neoconservatives' greatest strength lies
in the realm of ideas that Irving Kristol identified more than three decades ago. The neocons remain the winners of that battle,
not because their policies have made the world or the U.S. more secure, but by default -- because there are so few genuinely alternative
ideas that are championed with equal zeal. The foreign policy discussion surrounding Soleimani's killing -- which accelerated Iran's
nuclear weapons program, diminished America's influence in the Middle East, and entrenched Iran's theocratic regime -- has largely
occurred on a spectrum of the neocons' making. It is a discussion that accepts premises of the beneficence of American military might
and hegemony -- Hobbes's "ill game" -- and naturally bends the universe toward more war.
At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the
two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which
is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that
his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly
is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad.
As Trump takes an extreme hard line against Iran, the neoconservatives may ultimately get their long-held wish of a war with the
ayatollahs. When it ends in a fresh disaster, they can always argue that it only failed because it wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough
-- and the shuffle will begin again.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.
@ JacobHeilbrunn
Trump doesn't have a thing to fear he's been a huge asset to the security state, whose
Russiagate theatrics provided mainstream media news with just enough bullshit to distract the
public, so that Trump could never be aggressively attacked from the Left. For the last three
years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia.
Meanwhile, this enabled Trump to successfully pass a slew of reactionary legislation and
fasttrack numerous lifetime appointments to the federal court without barely a whimper from
the phony Dems. In fact, the Democrats unanimously voted for Trump's military budget. The
same idiot they called unhinged was given the power to start WWIII.
No matter how much liberals complain–the wealthy are happy with the status quo and
the right-wing Evangelicals are as pleased as punch. However, there's quite a large number of
disaffected Trump voters looking at Tulsi, but could eventually come Bernie's way.
Especially, if Tulsi endorses Bernie. This discontented bunch includes the working-poor, the
indebted young, and all the folks who are not doing economically well under Trump's fabulous
stock market. It especially includes the military families who were promised an end to the
miserable foreign interventions. Bernie, has some appeal to these folks. His platform
certainly resonates with all those who can barely pay their health insurance
premiums, and whose salary is NOT nearly considered a living wage. But Bernie could win
hands-down and steal Trump's base, if he only had the courage to UNAPOLOGETICALLY speak out
against US imperialism and connect all the dots explaining how the security state plundered
the treasury for decades f–king over the working-class.
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the
comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump
to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what
his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more
years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery,
he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons
and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember
Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money
on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.
On January 20, Donald G. Trump completed his third year
in office. My one blog that received five-digit Facebook shares predicted Trump would lose in
2016. I was spectacularly wrong but not alone. Even the Las Vegas bookies thought Clinton was a
shoo-in with her unbeatable two-punch knockout of (1) I'm not Trump and (2) World War III with
the Russians would be peachy at least until the bombs start falling. What could possibly have
gone wrong?
More to the point, the unexpected victory of Trump was the historical reaction to the
bankruptcy of Clinton-Bush-Obama neoliberalism. Now after three years of Mr. Trump, what's
left?
During the George W. Bush years – he's now viewed
favorably by a majority of Democrats – Democrats could wring their tied hands to the
accolades of their base. My own Democrat Representative Lynn Woolsey stood up daily in the
House and denounced Bush's Iraq war. For a while there was a resurgent peace movement against
US military adventures in the Middle East, which was even backed by some left-leaning
liberals.
But the moment that Obama ascended to the Oval Office, the Iraq War became Obama's war,
Bush's secretary of war Gates was carried over to administer it, and Woolsey forgot she was for
peace. No matter, Obama, the peace candidate, would fix it. Just give him a chance. For eight
years, Obama was given a chance and the peace movement went quiescent.
Trump takes office
Surely a Republican president, I thought, would harken a rebirth of the peace movement given
the ever-inflated war budget and the proliferation of US wars. The US is
officially at war with Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger. To the
official list are any number of other states subject to drone attacks such as Iran, Pakistan,
and Mali. And then there are some 30 countries targeted with illegal
unilateral coercive measures as form of economic warfare. Yet a funny thing happened on the
way to the demonstration.
With Republicans in control of both Congress and the White House, my expectation was that
Democrats would safely take a giant step to the right in accordance with their Wall Street
funders, while safely keeping a baby step to the left of the Republicans appeasing their
liberal-leaning base. To certain extent, this is what happened with Trump's tax cut for the
wealthy. The Democrats could and did claim that their hands were once again tied wink, wink to
their Wall Street handlers.
Yet on many more fundamental issues, the Democrats did not take advantage of paying lip
service to their base's economic priorities by attacking the Republicans on their weak left
flank. No, the Democrats mounted an assault on the Republicans from the right with what
The Hill
called Pelosi's "fiscally hawkish pay-as-you-go rules," increasing the
war budget , and launching
Russiagate . Instead of appealing to working people on bread and butter issues, the
Democrats gave us turbo-charged identity politics.
Bernie Sanders had raised genuine issues regarding runaway income inequality and plutocratic
politics. However, Sanders was suppressed by a hostile corporate press and an antagonistic
Democratic Party establishment, which arguably preferred to risk a Republican victory in 2016
than support anyone who questioned neoliberal orthodoxy.
Sanders' issues got asphyxiated in the juggernaut of Russiagate. His legacy – so far
– has been to help contain a progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party, the
perennial graveyard of social movements. Had Mr. Sanders not come along, the Democrats –
now the full-throated party of neoliberal austerity at home and imperial war abroad –
would have needed to invent a leftish Pied Piper to keep their base in the fold.
So, after three years of Trump, the more than ever needed mass
movement against militarism has yet to resurrect in force, notwithstanding promising
demonstrations in immediate response to Trump's assassination of Iran's Major General
Soleimani on January 3 with more demonstrations to come.
Imperialism and neoliberalism
Dubya proved his imperialist mettle with the second Iraq war; Obama with the destruction of
Libya. But Trump has yet to start a war of his own. Though, in the case of Iran, it was not
from lack of trying. The last US president with a similar imperialist failing was the one-term
Carter. But Trump has 12 and possibly 60 more months to go.
In his short time in office, Trump has packed his administration with former war industry
executives, increased troops in Afghanistan, approved selling arms to the coup government of
Ukraine, made the largest arms sale in US history to Saudi Arabia, supported the Saudi's war
against Yemen, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and killed more civilians in
drone strikes than "Obomber." In the empire's "backyard," Trump tightened the blockade on Cuba,
intensified Obama's sanctions on Venezuela to a blockade, oversaw the devastation of Puerto
Rico , and backed the right wing coup in Bolivia. The Venezuelan
Embassy Protectors are fighting the US government for a fair trial, while Julian Assange
faces extradition to the US.
Now that Trump has declared the
defeat of ISIS , the US National Defense Strategy is "interstate strategic competition"
with Russia and China. This official guiding document of the US imperial state explicitly calls
for "build[ing] a more lethal force" for world domination. Giving credit where it is due, back
in 2011, Hillary Clinton and Obama had presciently decreed a " pivot to Asia ," targeting
China.
Closer to home Trump has been busy deregulating environmental protections, dismantling the
National Park system, weaponizing
social media , and undoing net neutrality, while withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on
global warming. What's not to despise?
Russiagate and impeachment
Russiagate
– in case you have a real life and are not totally absorbed in mass media – is
about a conspiracy that the Russians and not the US Electoral College are responsible for
Hillary Clinton not getting her rightful turn to be President of the United States.
For the better part of the last three years under the shadow of Trump in the White House, a
spook emerged from the netherworld of the deep state and has toiled mightily to expose
wrongdoers. This man, former head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, we are told is only one miracle
short of being canonized in blue state heaven. Yet even he failed to indict a single American
for colluding with Russia, though he was able to hand out indictments to Americans for other
wrongdoings not related to Russia.
Undeterred by this investigation to nowhere, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi initiated
impeachment proceedings against the sitting president in the Democrat's first successful step
to promote Mike Pence as the next POTUS.
When an unelected and unaccountable CIA operative in secret collusion with opposition
politicians (e.g., Adam Schiff) and with backing from his agency seeks to take down a
constitutionally elected president, that is cause for concern. Operating under the cloak of
anonymity and with privileged access to information, national security operatives skilled in
the craft of espionage have the undemocratic means to manipulate and even depose elected
officials.
What has arisen is an emboldened national security state. The CIA, lest we forget, is the
clandestine agency whose mission is to use any means necessary to affect "regime change" in
countries that dare to buck the empire. Latin American leftists used to quip that the US has
never suffered a coup because there is no US embassy in Washington. There may not be a US
embassy there, but the CIA and the rest of the US security establishment are more than ever
present and pose a danger to democracy.
Now Obama's former Director of National Intelligence and serial
perjurer James Clapper holds the conflicted role of pundit on CNN while still retaining his
top
security clearance . Likewise, Obama's former CIA director, torture apologist, and fellow
perjurer John Brennan holds forth on NBC News and MSNBC with his security
clearance intact .
Class trumps partisan differences
The Democrats and Republicans mortally combat on the superficial, while remaining united in
their bedrock class loyalty to the rule of capital and US world hegemony. The first article of
the Democrat-backed impeachment is the president's "abuse of power." Yet, amidst the heat of
the House impeachment hearings, the Democrats, by an overwhelming majority, helped renew the
Patriot
Act , which gives the president war time authority to shred the constitution.
Contrary to the utterances of the Democratic presidential candidates
on the campaign trail about limiting US military spending, the latest $738 billion National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is $22 billion over the last. The Democratic Progressive
Caucus didn't even bother to whip members to oppose the bill. On December 11, in an orgy of
bi-partisan love, the NDAA bill passed by a landslide vote of 377-48.
President Trump tweeted "Wow!" Democratic Party leader and House Armed Services Committee
Chairman Adam Smith called the bill "the
most progressive defense bill we have passed in decades."
This bill gifts twelve more Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets than Trump had requested and
green-lights funding of Trump's border wall with Mexico. Stripped from the bipartisan NDAA
"compromise" bill were provisions to prohibit Trump from launching a war on Iran without
Congressional authorization. Similarly dropped were limits to US participation in the genocidal
war in Yemen.
A new Space Force is authorized to militarize the heavens. Meanwhile the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists has set the doomsday clock at 2 minutes before
midnight. Unfortunately, the Democrat's concern about Trump's abuse of power does not extend to
such existential matters as nuclear war.
Trump's renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (i.e., USMCA), an acknowledged
disaster , was renewed
with bipartisan support. On the domestic front, Trump cut food stamps, Medicaid, and
reproductive health services over the barely audible demurs of the supine Democrats.
Revolt of the dispossessed
Behind the façade of the impeachment spectacle – Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz
are now on Trump's legal team – is a ruling class consensus that trumps partisan
differences. As political economist Rob Urie perceptively observed
:
The American obsession with electoral politics is odd in that 'the people' have so little
say in electoral outcomes and that the outcomes only dance around the edges of most people's
lives. It isn't so much that the actions of elected leaders are inconsequential as that other
factors -- economic, historical, structural and institutional, do more to determine
'politics.'
In the highly contested 2016 presidential contest, nearly half the eligible US voters opted out, not
finding enough difference among the contenders to leave home. 2020 may be an opportunity; an
opening for an alternative to neoliberal austerity at home and imperial wars abroad lurching to
an increasingly oppressive national security state. The campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi
Gabbord and before them Occupy point to a popular insurgency. Mass protests of the dispossessed
are rocking
France , India ,
Colombia
, Chile , and
perhaps here soon.
I'm a former Trump voter who could vote for Warren or Sanders but not Biden. Trump has been
the biggest disappointment of my political life, and I'll never forgive him for the failures
on immigration, but Biden and bis family looks to be at least as personally sleazy and
corrupt as the Trumps, if not as outright sickening.
Well, I'm a non-Democrat leftist (except for conservative leanings on social issues and a
vehemently anti-war posture that is a minority view on both the left and right). I have voted
for third-party candidates for President most of my life (and I'm a septuagenarian). For
reasons of foreign policy and economics, I would probably vote for either Sanders or Warren,
at least if they don't get too bonkers on identity politics. But there is no way I would vote
for any of the other Democratic contenders, and there is no way I would vote for Trump.
For what it's worth, I think the whole frenzy to defeat Trump no matter what is overblown.
Except for the Twitter feed, I don't see how Trump has actually governed much differently
from any other contemporary Republican. The difference between Trump and, say Ted Cruz, or
Marco Rubio, is mostly style, not policy.
That last sentence is true. But it is style that really matters to many Democrats. Obama was
their ideal President almost entirely because of his style.
And Trump's style is what attracts his hard core supporters.
If that means Uncle Joe, then Trump may bloody well already uncork the champagne. Remember
that recent Iranian debacle of his, which is already starting being forgotten? That was the
*only* real chance for Democrats to look solid in the Senate when trying to impeach him. The
only way to make Republican senators look dishonest and partisan when defending him. An
unexpected and unprovoked electoral gift to them from Trump (a would-have-been-serious gift -
read Daniel Larison's articles as to how many American voters, no matter their partisan
leanings, are anti-war now). How did the DNC manage that gift? Exactly. By directly bringing
it to the trash bin without a moment of hesitation and keeping on desperately clinging to the
politically stillborn clownery around Ukraine which will allow the Republican senators to
laugh their Democratic colleagues out of the stage and seal Trump's victory the very moment
the said clownery is brought to the upper chamber of the parliament. Now Democrats look like
a poor feller in front of an insurmountable wall, who, having witnessed a door which
magically/quantumly appeared in that wall, screamed "To battle!/Arriva!/Kovfefe!", slammed
the said door shut, industriously broke the handle so that it could never be opened again in
the quantum dimension he exists and resumed his attempts to - how to put it mildly? - shatter
the reinforced concrete with his forehead.
Trump's increase in the military budget blows every claim about Trump rebelling against the
general out of the water. Also, firing generals from the second career civilian positions
they were never qualified for in the first place simply isn't "firing" them, especially not
in any sense Trump "Your'e fired!" would consider as firing. Trump can be as abusive as he
wants, just like he is with everyone apparently: Some officers will do anything but fight an
equal enemy for high rank, including eating Trump's shit, then smiling. In many respects the
entire US military is a mercenary army and mercenaries are not really good at serious
fighting with real opponents. (In other respects, the lower ranks of the military are turning
into a weird version of Mamelukes or Janissaries, a religiously defined service caste with
temptations to rule. But military rule in a giant country is quite difficult.)
Further, if there is a deep state, the generals who hated Clinton and the FBI who hated
Clinton are just as much a part of it as the CIA professionals who thought Trump was a moron
who'd wreck everything. All deep state theories are either crackpottery or duplicity. The
main supporters of Trump are rich people, not just as contributors to his campaign---after
all, some are billionaires who might want to play president themselves!---but the ones who
keep buying advertising from the mass media who give Trump billions in free publicity, cover
up his criminal career as much as possible and encourage identity politics to keep the loyal
opposition from uniting the mass of people against the billionaires.
Trump's real chances of winning are due partly to lack of opposition from the Democratic
Party, which sharply limits its attacks on Trump to attacks from the right, for the good
reason that in policy terms, there is a huge overlap between Trump and the mainstream
Democrats. (Hence the media's assistance in trashing the Democratic Party during the
primaries.) The intense campaign to keep blacks from turning out is proceeding on all fronts.
And most of all, the mass media are still normalizing Trump, who is actually labeling his
opponents traitors, and hinting at violence. Further, the Weinstein trial is meant to
intimidate Democratic Party Hollywood donors/PR. And the Epstein case may be used to tar the
Pedophile Party at a convenient time. They have already conceded that accusation=conviction,
so it's doubtful they could put up a fight.
US initiated wars have been going on for decades, but I see no indication that US
americans have any issues with it. The political parties are totally aligned on foreign wars,
there are no people protesting in US cities.
"The intense campaign to keep blacks from turning out is proceeding on all fronts."
That, to me (and hopefully for most people), is very disturbing. I have been loosely
following Greg Palast and his team for about 15 years, and it would appear that the rot in
the US electoral system has only escalated since the 2000 election farce.
In my mind it is a class-war, and it is being waged against the most marginalised,
especially if of a darker skin tone (by the 'Elites', and with the acquiescence of the
ever-dwindling middle-classes).
It is a horror-show.
I know it may be old hat to many here, but I would highly recommend to any who are
interested in some of the manouvres (c.2000-present) that have led the US electoral system to
the sewer it resides in to read:
I've joked before that Trump is the most peaceful president since Carter. There is some truth
to this insofar as Trump's narrow cost-benefit analysis (as opposed to incoherently broad,
even internally contradictory, cost-benefit outlook promoted by 'national security'
interests) means he doesn't want to commit to expensive long-term interventionist projects,
which is what unites the right-wing neocons and the liberal interventionists (Pelosi,
Schumer). Trump is happy to throw money at the military (like the recent 750 billion re-up
approved by Congress) but also wants to keep costs down. Like a real estate developer, he
spends the money to maintain the Trump brand (tough guy, not like Carter), while extorting
and cheating 'contractors' (client states like S. Korea) to keep costs down, hence his
wanting to pull back from Syria and Afghanistan, meeting with hysteria-level resistance from
the 'deep state.' It's no Carter, but certainly better than the Bushes, Clinton,
Obama/Hilary. Military still ballooning though.
The problem with the corporate/executive/military theory of elite power is that there are
factions within factions, so the theory has limited explanatory power. The 'corporate'
faction has largely turned against China (hence the push or approval of the trade war) but
there are also important elements like Google and Apple who abhor the trade war and want to
maintain the status-quo. And within the military/CIA/national security, there are vectors
working at cross purposes. In some ways, the complexity can be parsed by neocon versus
liberal interventionist, but these two have more commonalities than differences, while 'Full
Spectrum Dominance' has different interpretations and emphases that, as a whole, can look
incoherent. The rationale behind Afghanistan being one example.
karlof1: "The answer for Afghanistan is multifold: It provides a position that helps
encircle Iran; it prevents the construction of the most logical transportation corridors to
facilitate Eurasian integration; it allows for attacks by the Evil Outlaw US Empire's Foreign
Legions into the soft underbelly of Russia and China via Central Asia; and it allows the CIA
to control the international opium and heroin trade. You should also see why these truths
cannot be told to the public as those aims contradict genuine American Values."
karlof1, thank you for that summary, which is probably the most concise formulation of it
I've seen, and it reminds me of importance of the CIA and the opiate trade. While, taken
individually, those points look like they 'make sense', but as a whole -- especially the
support of proxy groups via opium funds and happily 'mispent' money like US aid -- the net
result is more chaos than actions with discrete goals. If there's anything that can be said
about US foreign policy, it's that the chaos is by design, not so much because it benefits
'national security interests' but because it benefits the MIC. Chaos is the biggest
subsidy.
@ 30 lysander.. "So no, Trump is not at all an anti-interventionist. He's just looking for a
way to make imperialism (even more) profitable and just wants to end the none performing wars
and start money making wars." i tend to think the usa - wall st and the military complex for
sure - make money off these money losing wars as well... why end them either, when it is
working for the top %? what i don't understand is any american thinking they are going to get
anything different with either repubs or dems... i guess that is where all the msm back and
forth bullshit works to keep people brainwashed and unable to see the bigger picture here..
that and americans for the most part seem totally obsessed with their own little exceptional
world with little thought about there foreign policy... to me it is all about fp, but to most
americans it is all about trump or sanders, or football and that is it! they seem quite happy
to stay in that small little loop.. i honestly think it will not be unable they are bombed on
their own soil will the collectively wake the fuck up and even then, i somehow doubt it as
the brainwashing has been so successful..
The 1950's triangle of power was superseded by the oligarch's counter revolution that
led to supranational trade institutions. Democracies were relegated to a secondary status and
run by technocrats for the benefit of oligarchs until Donald Trump. He is a nationalist
plutocrat; admittedly a lower level one, a NY casino owner who went bankrupt. Mike Bloomberg
represents the other side, a globalist billionaire. Elizabeth Warren is a top level
technocrat but no politician.
The endless wars are fought to make a profit for the plutocracy and destabilize nations
to make foreign corporate exploitation possible. That was why Hunter Biden was in Ukraine.
The conflicts are not meant to be won.
Donald Trump is way for over his head and getting old. His competent staff are in jail or
fired. Apparently no one told him about the thousands of ballistic missiles that can destroy
the Gulf States' oil facilities at will and make the buildup for the invasion of Iran
impossible. He makes stupid mistakes. Through the barrage of propaganda, reports of shell
shocked troops, destroyed buildings and 11 concussion causalities from Iran's missile attack
made it into the news. The military must be pissed. The aura of invincibility is gone.
Donald Trump should be removed by the 25th amendment before he mistakenly triggers the
Apocalypse. Except the 1% politician VP, Mike Pence, believes that the End of Time is God's
Will and necessary for his Ascension.
I completely disagree with this article. But to be honest, none of us knows anything for sure
outside our own direct experiences. We all rely on 3rd hand (even 10th hand) information and
pick among the various options beliefs which fit our own biases. So if thats what b chooses
to believe so be it.
All we can do is look at the present and compare it to a point in the past. So lets do
that.
With Trump we are still in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump committed an act of war
against Iran and violated a treaty with Iran. Has has supported MBS carnage in Yemen. He has
attempted regime change in Venezuela and implemented crippling sanctions against Venezuela
and Iran which causes harm to innocent people by denying access to some drugs and makes food
more expensive.
He started a trade war with China that resulted in billions of dollars in tariffs , paid
for by the American consumer, and the loss of income for farmers which he subsidized on the
tax payers dime. His agreement with China offers incentives for US companies to invest in
China and does nothing to bring manufacturing jobs back.
Manufacturing and industrial production is not much higher than when Trump took over. He
gave hundreds of billions in tax cuts to the rich and corporations promising it would trickle
down with more jobs and higher salaries. Its done neither and meanwhile the national debt has
skyrocketed.
Retail sales are plummeting as disposable income of the bottom 90% shrink as asset
inflation caused by the Fed QE make home ownership more expensive or unaffordable and causing
higher rents. Tuitions continue to rise paid by increased debt to students/households and
government paid tuitions for veterans. Drug prices continue to rise despite Trumps commitment
to reign in Big Pharma, as do overall medical costs and insurance premiums taking more out of
the bottom 90% budget.
Fifty percent of those working make less than 33k per year and 50% of households couldn't
come up with 400 dollars for an emergency w/o tapping into their credit (if any). Meanwhile,
while neocons in his administration plot to cut medicare, medicaid and social security,
something Trump promised not to do, while Trump keeps inflating the military budget each
year.
Infrastructure development which was big on his fake agenda is nowhere to be seen, aside
from a partially completed wall Mexico was supposed to pay for but didn't, but was rewarded
with Nafta 2 (Trump promised to scrap Nafta).
Meanwhile there seems to be as many illegal immigrants as before (after all, someone has
to work the farms and slaughter houses for Big Agra) .The great health care plan Trump
promised to replace Obamacare is nowhere to be seen. Relations with Russia don't seem much
better with more sanctions added under Trump.
Israel is pretty happy though, their new Cyrus moved the embassy to Jerusalem as promised
and signed an EO cutting of Federal funding to universities who allow criticism of
Israel.
The sad thing is nobody the Dems are running offer much of a positive change. Any promises
made will be broken and blamed on the other party. The DNC is beholden to the same masters as
the RNC. Presidents are just stage actors.
Trumps main mission besides enriching the elite at the middle class expense, feeding the
MIC beast, kissing Bibis feet is discrediting in the eyes of the rest of the world American
Democracy (an illusion at this point), Capitalism (actually taken over by neoliberalism) and
Christianity (his biggest supporters are Evangelical Christians). Imagine a bankrupted Casino
owner associated with the mafia with multiple divorces and multiple accusations of
inappropriate sexual conduct and convicted of racial discrimination not only becoming
President , but representing the party of the Christian Right?
So when they finally establish the consensus for a new multi-polar global NWO they will be
able to unite the world based on its anti-American sentiment , a feeling induced by the
neocons with Trump as the icing on the cake. Of course, the American elite who are actually
multi-national or globalist will remain unscathed, and the military will be
internationalized, but for those left behind life will be much like those in countries taken
over by the IMF/World Bank with reparations due instead of interest, paid via a Carbon
Tax
Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated
very clearly that he is a liar
He also promised a wall. Maybe he meant the Israeli wall?
Trump is betraying his voters and threatening millions of lives.
In a full-blown U.S. war
with Iran, up to a million people could die initially.
Hundreds of thousands more could die in the vacuum to follow. Millions would be made
refugees. That's the conclusion of experts surveyed
by Vox reporter Alex Ward . "The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious,"
Middle East scholar Michael Hanna warned.
With the brazen assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq,
President Trump has brought us leaps and bounds closer to that conflagration -- a decision
Trump appears to have made while
golfing at Mar-a-Lago .
Lawmakers need to move before it's too late.
The Iranians may
respond cautiously , perhaps forestalling a full-blown conflict. But there can be no doubt
the White House has been driving in that direction from day one.
In a few short years, Trump has blown up the Iran nuclear deal, put a horrific economic
stranglehold on the country, and sent a stunning
14,000 new troops to the Middle East since just last spring. Some
3,500 more are now on their way.
"Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran," John Bolton
tweeted about the assassination . Bolton may have left the White House, but clearly his
spirit lives on.
What next? Get ready to hear a lot about what a "
bad guy " Soleimani was, and how Iran is a "state sponsor" of terrorism.
No doubt, Soleimani had blood on his hands -- he was a general. Yet after two decades of
U.S. wars in the Middle East, that's the pot calling the kettle black. It was the U.S. who
invaded Iraq, started a civil war, and paved the way for a literal terrorist state, ISIS, to
occupy the country afterward (a force Soleimani himself was instrumental in dismantling).
That senseless war caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, exploded the terrorist threat,
and is destabilizing the region to this day. Yet somehow, war hawks like Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo can go on TV and -- with a straight face -- predict ordinary Iranians will
essentially thank the U.S. for murdering their general.
"People not only in Iraq but in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them
freedom,"
Pompeo said the morning after the assassination. You couldn't caricature a better callback
to Dick Cheney's infamous prediction that Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" if you
tried.
This war-mongering should be as toxic politically as
it is morally . Trump rode into office promising to end America's wars, winning him crucial
votes in swing states with large military and veteran populations. Huge bipartisan majorities,
including 58 percent of Republicans, say they want U.S. troops out of the Middle East.
Trump is betraying them spectacularly.
Yet too many Democrats are
merely objecting to Trump's failure to consult them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained the
strike "was taken without the consultation of the Congress." South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg
offered colorlessly that "there are serious questions about how this decision was made." Others
complained about the apparent lack of a "strategy."
It's illegal for a president to unilaterally launch a war -- that's important. But these
complaints make it sound like if you want to kill a million people for no reason, you just have
to go to the DMV first. As if Trump's base doesn't love it when he cuts the line in
Washington.
Senator Bernie Sanders, who warned that "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to
another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more
dollars," came closer to communicating the real threat.
Millions of lives are at stake. Trump's aggression demands -- and voters will more likely
reward -- real opposition. Call him on it
before it's too late.
Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of
Foreign Policy In Focus.
A shadowy Silicon Valley group that, largely unnoticed, bankrolled Democrat candidates up and
down the country in the 2018 midterms, will spend up to $140 million to topple President Trump in 2020, according to
Recode.
The group, called "Mind the Gap," is led by Stanford law school professor Barbara Field, former Obama staffer
Graham Gottlieb, and former Hewlett Foundation president Paul Brest.
The group uses a data-driven approach to target funding to seats where donors' dollars will have the maximum
impact, funded 20 Democrat candidates in 2018, ten of whom won.
Via Recode:
In 2018, the group, which is led by Stanford law school professor
Barbara
Fried
,
raised
about $500,000 for 20 different Democratic congressional challengers
, many of whom were underdogs to win their
bids. Ten of them won. Mind the Gap became a hit in Silicon Valley in particular because it asked tech leaders to
fund races where it had calculated each dollar would have the greatest marginal impact on Democrats taking back
the House, which synced with the industry's data-driven thinking.
This time around, the group is asking its donors to fund three separate voter-registration
programs: the Voter Participation Center (VPC) and the Center for Voter Information (CVI), which in September
alone sent out 7.1 million voter registration applications by mail, according to Mind the Gap. The last endorsed
group is Everybody Votes (EV), which is training organizers to sign up voters in local communities and has used
some of the $35 million that Mind the Gap has already raised to register Democratic voters in Wisconsin, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. (Future money from the group is going to do the same in Florida, Arizona, and
Nevada.)
In this cycle, the group aims to raise over $100 million to fund get-out-the-vote efforts and other political
activities:
Mind the Gap told prospective donors last fall that it had already raised at least $35 million in
political contributions for voter registration efforts, which is part of a fundraising goal that could stretch to
$100 million, according to a memo obtained by Recode.
Mind the Gap is also seeking another estimated $30 million for get-out-the-vote work along with
another estimated $10 million for "orphan races" -- which means primarily funding candidates for state legislatures
that the group sees as wrongly under-funded.
Are you an insider at Facebook, YouTube, Google, Reddit or any other tech company who wants to
confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email
address
[email protected].
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.
When people thought in 2016 that they are winning against the National Security state, they
were deceived by the candidate who sounded rational during election campaign, but then became
Hillary II in three months after inauguration and brought Bush II neocons into his
Administration.
So voters were deceived with Clinton, deceived with Bush II, deceived with Obama, deceived
with Trump. You now see the tendency...
With all that is happening in the U.S right now I can't help but think that it's past time
for the people to reassert their power over the National security state, as unrealistic as
that might sound.
The Anti war movement is ideologically divided between progressives and
libertarian/paleoconservatives, so a political party would not likely be the answer.
Instead perhaps we should consider a grassroots movement to amend the constitution to
guarantee U.S neutrality in world affairs (banning both the arming or financing of foreign
belligerents) and to ban the Federal government from having a standing military force except
in times of actual war. I don't know what chance either would have of actually being passed,
but it might at least force a debate on these issues in a way that might resonate better with
the average American. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Peace and Solidarity
No Wall has been built in America BUT the U.S. Embassy is in Jerusalem.
No Immigration Solution. Record numbers of f-1's and b1's.
National Debt Level WORSE than in summer 2008 Right Before Financial Meltdown.
No End to the 'Endless' Wars (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq)
Israel got the Golan Heights. Jews have gotten an E.O. recognizing them as a Nation. All the
big Jew Wall St. Firms have had easy money and tax credits from Trump.
What did America get? How can anyone believe anything other than: 'Israel first, last and
always' from Donald J. Trump? He endlessly blathers about the evils of antisemitism while 80%
of Jews continue to vote Democrat.
I can do nothing except conclude the man's soul has been completely and utterly drained from
him through his never ending fellating of Israel and the incessant pounding BoBo Satanyahoo
gives him.
At this point, it is just an embarrassment to watch Trump. I saw his press conference this
afternoon and I couldn't believe the difference between that monotone, babbling idiot I saw
today and the guy who used to fill Stadiums.
The America government has become the Great Satan.
Israel is it's helper.
Trump is the Great Betrayer.
Trump's legal team reportedly prepared their strategy to challenge articles of
impeachment by House Dems -- yet to be sent to the GOP-controlled Senate for trial.
According to Law Professor Jonathan Turley, "(b)y rushing the impeachment and forcing a vote
before Christmas, the House gave up control over an incomplete and insufficient case for
removal," adding:
"It gave up that control to a chamber controlled by the opposing party."
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attempt to game the system has not achieved any concession from
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."
"Few of us believed it would. Now the House will proceed on the thinnest record ever
presented in a modern presidential impeachment trial."
Clearly it's going nowhere, likely to help Trump's reelection, not undermine it.
Articles of impeachment by House Dems against Trump with no legitimate standing seek
political advantage in November's presidential and congressional elections.
That's what this is all about, ignoring serious Trump wrongdoing, just cause for impeachment
and removal from office. More on this below.
Under the Constitution's Article II, Section 4, impeachment and conviction require proving
"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
No legitimacy exists to impeach Trump for abuse of power on grounds of seeking interference
from Ukraine to aid his 2020 presidential reelection and obstruction of Congress for defying
House subpoenas.
Clear just cause exists to impeach and remove him from office for crimes of war, against
humanity, and betraying the public trust by serving monied interests exclusively at the expense
of ordinary people he greatly harmed at home and abroad.
Breaching virtually every positive promise made to the American people proved he can never
be trusted and no longer has justification to serve.
Abroad, he escalated crimes of war and against humanity against Syria, Yemen,
Afghanistan, and Somalia. He supports aggression in Libya, Donbass, Ukraine, and Occupied
Palestine. He's waging economic terrorism on Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea,
Russia and other countries. He supports international terrorism while pretending to combat
it.
As US president and commander-in-chief, he's responsible for high crimes at home and abroad,
legitimate impeachable offenses.
He committed acts of war against Iraq and Iran by terror-bombing Iraqi territory, killing
deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and others, along with assassinating IRGC Quds Force
commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
All of the above are high crimes, just cause to impeach and remove him from office, what
Dems and Republicans should support.
Clearly they won't because they share guilt. The vast majority of Washington's political
class is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors -- by supporting aggression, state terrorism,
and other hostile actions
In response to Trump's threat to target dozens of Iranian sites, including cultural ones,
President Rouhani warned him "never (to) threaten the Iranian nation."
In solidarity against imperial USA for assassinating General Soleimani, millions of Iranians
took to the streets over the weekend and Monday to honor him and symbolically stand against the
scourge America represents.
As a nation mourns the loss of its revered Quds Force commander, his assassination an act of
war by any standard, Iran's parliament discussed an appropriate response, the body's spokesman
Asadollah Abbasi saying:
"In reaction to the recent terrorist and cowardly assassination of Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani
and his companions by the US and as decided by the presiding board, the triple-urgency motion
will be put on the agenda of the parliament's open session," adding:
"The latest US action is viewed as 'state-sponsored terrorism' not only by the parliament's
presiding board but also by most world countries, and the ratification of the triple-urgency
motion lends legal credit to this issue."
On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif denounced the US for its "blatant disregard for
the jus cogens in international law as well as for universally-recognized rights and
immunities," adding:
"This is the same schizophrenic approach that repugnantly threatens, in contravention of
international law, to strike Iran's cultural sites which are part of the shared human cultural
and civilizational heritage."
Killing Soleimani, a "voice of independence-seeking struggles" in the war-torn Middle East,
was a "cowardly" attack on him and the Iranian nation, "a strategic blunder."
The only way forward for restoration of regional peace and stability is "expulsion of the US
from West Asia."
Zarif stressed that Iran remains "the anchor of peace and security" in the Middle East,
along with its development.
Peace and stability defeat US imperial aims. Endless wars and other hostile actions serve it
-- what its imperial scourge is all about.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for
Hegemony Risks WW III."
Iran vs. US: The Murder of General Qassem Suleimani
by Peter Koenig / January 7th, 2020
Interestingly, after the US attack on Iraqi Militia
fighters on 31 December 2020, and the assassination of General Qassem Suleimani , on 2
January, the first thing President Trump could come up with was bragging that it was him who
gave the order to murder the popular military leader. General Qassem Suleimani was the
commander of the Iranian special Quds Force. The Quds Force was created during the
Iran –Iraq War as a special unit from the broader Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps ( IRGC ). It has the mission of liberating Muslim land, especially al-
Quds , from which it takes its name – "Jerusalem Force ", in English.
General Suleimani was killed by a US drone. He was not only the most popular and prominent
military officer in Iran, but he was also influential and respected throughout the Middle East.
He was chief in training Iraqi forces who eventually defeated ISIS in Iraq within less than a
year when the US and NATO estimated it would take at least 3 years. General Suleimani, along
with Russia, was also instrumental in training the Syrian armed forces with the objective of
defeating ISIS / IS / DEASH in Syria, and they succeeded. This US act of impunity, the General
Suleimani killing, was unmistakenly targeted with precision and as such a clear declaration of
war on Iran.
Trump expected applause from the public at large. Let's not forget he is entering the year
2020 of his re-election that's what he wants. So, he needs increased popularity and approval
ratings. To be reelected, he, like others before him, doesn't shy away from committing murder
or entering a new war, killing millions. That's what American Presidents do to win elections.
That's what Obama has done. He entered the Presidency with two ongoing US wars –
Afghanistan and Iraq – when he left office the US was engaged in seven wars around the
globe, in Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq.
Plus, numerous proxy-conflicts, meaning they are fought by mercenaries and / or US trained,
funded and armed terrorists; i.e., ISIS / DAESH, Islamic State (IS) and whatever other names
the empire gives its agents of terror to confuse the world. And let's not forget, the
algorithmically manipulated regime-change elections in Latin America and Europe, the steady
NATO advances with new military bases encircling Russia and China, including the stationing of
more than 50% of the US Naval force in the South China Sea.
Most of the US Presidents are elected on the basis of their aggression, planned or ongoing,
on how much they are willing to kill around the world and how well they are representing the
interests of the US War Industry -- and, of course, the Israeli AIPAC (American Israel Public
Affairs Committee). In other words, Americans who go to the polls are duped into believing they
are electing a president, when in reality their president had been pre-selected by a small
group of elitists, representing the key US interests, the War Industry, Big Finance, Big Oil,
Big Pharma – and who else, of course, the State of Israel.
The unarmed Iraqi protests and attack on 31 December on the US Embassy in Baghdad was a
response to a US assault on Militia Iraqi forces on 29 December – leaving at least 25
dead and more than 50 wounded.
The US has absolutely no business in Iraq. Not now, not ever – nor in Syria, nor
anywhere else in the Middle East – for that matter, outside the frontiers of the United
States of America. It's as simple as that.
And the world, the UN, the UN Security Council should act accordingly.
The boundless US aggression must be stopped.
The world has become used to it and, for the most part, is just silent. The ABNORMAL has
become normal. That must be reversed.
Yes, the Iranian Government warned of retaliation. Understandably. However, that is
precisely what Washington and the Pentagon wants; that's what they were provoking, with this
assassination of General Suleimani, and earlier with confiscated oil tankers and tanker attacks
in the Gulf. The US hawks are just waiting for Iran to retaliate, so they can attack in full
force – or ask Israel to attack in full force with US backing, of course.
Knowing how the US is acting around the world with impunity – and especially in the
countries they want to dominate – Iran has to count with the worst. So far, Iran has been
acting wisely with a lot of restraint, not to risk MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction, in
other words, a World War scenario.
A retaliation must be well-thought out – and foremost not be obvious. It must be
strategic with long-term impact not the short-term face-saving military act. In the long-term,
non-aggression, non-confrontation – the contrary of what Washington is seeking –
may prevail. Let the American war hawks continue shadow boxing.
What the Middle East and world is dealing with is a dying beast. That's what the US empire
has become. The beast, in its last breath, is lashing out round itself no matter how many other
countries it pulls with it into the abyss, no matter how many people are killed in the
process.
What will be the world's reaction to this open and flagrant murder? Do not expect much from
the US-submissive West, especially the Europeans.
However, Iran can certainly count on Russia and China and on a number of other allies. And
in the UN on the more than 120 non-aligned countries that also stand behind Venezuela and Cuba,
and now behind Evo Morales.
This is important. These unaligned countries are now in the majority of the UN body of
member states. They have to speak out in the Security Council, as well as in the General
Assembly. This case of US impunity should be elevated to world attention. Therefore, Iran may
want to call a special UN General Assembly Meeting to discuss the case. It would show
where the UN stands and would accordingly provide Iran with more leverage on their
reaction.
Iran cannot elevate this case high enough on the world stage. So that each and every nation
realizes that their own sovereignty is at risk – is every day at risk – of being
annihilated by the wannabe World Hegemon, the self-declared Exceptional Nation, US of A.
Only united can this monster be beaten.
Washington is weak, knows no long-term thinking, no long-term strategy – lives off
instant gratification. This works for a while, by sheer military force, but not forever.
Russia and China have now far advanced precision weaponry and are allies of Iran. Short-term
thinking may be a suicide mission.
Much as been made about Soleimani's alleged responsibility for the deaths of 600 American
servicemen but what people forget is that Iranian military personnel would be legitimate
targets if they invaded Mexico or Canada. That 600 figure is probably a drop in the bucket
compared to the number of people Trump has killed with his unprecedented number of drone
strikes since taking office.
Whatever the case Donald Trump is indeed a pathological liar and monumental fraud and it
seems that the vast majority of his deplorables (I'm an ex-deplorable) have tripled down on
their love and support of him despite his broken promise of ending "these stupid wars".
To some extent it is not relevant if Trump was lying during his campaign, or has been
corrupted/coopted/fooled/pressured/played for a chump by the establishment. He said one thing
and is doing another: that's the bottom line.
However: I note that after Barack Obama got elected, he immediately fired all of his
populist advisors and hired Wall Streeters even before being sworn in. Obama was clearly
lying up front.
Trump, however, initially did start moving in the direction he said he would, he kept his
populist/nationalist advisors, and really did make actual moves to carry out his campaign
promises. And the establishment went total nut job, he was a Russian agent, his populist
advisers were targeted for legal actions, they were replaced with establishment advisors who
hate him Trump was strong on stage berating a political opponent, but against establishment
pressure he has turned out to be weak, caving in to "the Blob" at every turn.
Had she been elected, Hillary would already have started the neocon wet dream of a war
with Iran.
While that may be true, I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would
have been worse. Being relatively less evil, or a different incarnation of evil, is still
evil.
Frankly, impeachment was just a distraction to divert attention from the real play. The
dagger at his throat is from far more malevolent foes who can wield both blackmail or death
as the circumstances demand to get their way. The jewish mafia is far more dangerous than the
Sicilian boys could ever hope to be. The latter learned from the former.
>> On top of this Putin himself has made some critical mistakes due to his Naive
personality, especially his falling for Trumps phoney reset (Trumps policies towards Russia
have been harsher then any president since Pappi Bush) and in the aftermath of that flop,
running into the arms of "Red" China's fake belt and Road which will be used to get Russia
completely dependent on the biggest U$ satellite
I don't agree that China is pro-US, with tome China will grow and the US will diminish,
BRI will leads towards that, but I do agree that Trump has been the most anti-russian
president since the 80s. Be objective. Do not look at what they say, look at what they do,
the maxim says. Defacto, Trump has been far more aggressive and hostile to Russia than Obama.
And he made everything possible to increase military budgets.
She also failed to mention that Trump activated Second Fleet in the Atlantic (that Obama
actually disabled) for Russia containment.
Trump is just a military puppet seeking to prolong the US Empire on the cheap. That is -
no more nation building, and let others pay for propping up the US empire.
@ Posted by: lysias | Dec 16 2019 1:46 utc | 25 and Posted by: Passer by | Dec 16 2019 1:39
utc | 24 writing about who was instrumental in being negative towards Russia.
It was during Obama's term that Russia changed the trajectory of the war in Syria.
But lets get real, there is only one "Party" in America, the private finance/money party
and both Obama and Trump are/were puppets for it. And those folks have know for some time
about the integration of China/Russia geopolitical views so the policy has been "consistent"
for probably a decade or more.
Money quote: "Johnson will have to work superhard on this if he is to re-create not the
Thatcher coalition but the Disraeli nation. That's what he means when he talks about "One Nation
Conservatism." That was Disraeli's reformist conservatism of the 19th century, a somewhat
protectionist, supremely patriotic alliance between the conservative elites and the ordinary man
and woman. It will take a huge amount of charm and policy persistence to cement that coalition if
it is to last more than one election. But if Boris pulls that off, he will have found a new
formula designed to kill off far-right populism, while forcing the left to regroup."
Notable quotes:
"... But just as important, he moved the party sharply left on austerity, spending on public services, tax cuts for the working poor, and a higher minimum wage. He outflanked the far right on Brexit and shamelessly echoed the left on economic policy ..."
Brexit is an eruption of English nationalism, and the Tories are now, under that shambling
parody of a drunk racist English aristo, Johnson, an English nationalist party.
IMHO this is highly questionable statement. Brexit is a form of protest against neoliberal
globalization. The fact that is colored with nationalism is the secondary effect/factor:
rejection of neoliberalism is almost always colored in either nationalist rhetoric, or Marxist
rhetoric.
Here are some quotes from paleoconservative analysis of the elections taken from two recent
articles:
While I do not share their enthusiasm about "Red Tories" rule in the UK, and the bright
future for "Trumpism without Trump" movement in the USA, they IMHO provide some interesting
insights into paleoconservatives view on the British elections results and elements of social
protest that led to them:
[AS] It is clearer and clearer to me that the wholesale adoption of critical race, gender,
and queer theory on the left makes normal people wonder what on earth they're talking about
and which dictionary they are using. The white working classes are privileged? A woman can
have a penis? In the end, the dogma is so crazy, and the language so bizarre, these natural
left voters decided to listen to someone who
does actually speak their language , even if in an absurdly plummy accent.
[AS] But just as important, he moved the party sharply left on austerity, spending on
public services, tax cuts for the working poor, and a higher minimum wage. He outflanked the
far right on Brexit and shamelessly echoed the left on economic policy . ... This is
Trumpism without Trump. A conservative future without an ineffective and polarizing nutjob at
the heart of it. Unlike Trump, he will stop E.U. mass migration, and pass a new immigration
system, based on the Australian model. Unlike Trump, he will focus tax cuts on the working
poor, not the decadent rich. Unlike Trump, he will stop E.U. mass migration, and pass a new
immigration system, based on the Australian model. Unlike Trump, he will focus tax cuts on
the working poor, not the decadent rich. It's very much the same movement of left-behind
people expressing their views on the same issues, who, tragically, put their trust in Trump.
What we've seen is how tenacious a voting bloc that now is, which is why Trumpism is here to
stay. If we could only get rid of the human cancer at the heart of it.
[AS] Trump has bollixed it up, of course. He ran on Johnson's platform but gave almost all
his tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, while Johnson will cut taxes on the poor. Trump talks
a big game on immigration but has been unable to get any real change in the system out of
Congress. Johnson now has a big majority to pass a new immigration bill, with Parliament in
his control, which makes the task much easier. Trump is flamingly incompetent and unable to
understand his constitutional role. Boris will assemble a competent team, with Michael Gove
as his CEO, and Dom Cummings as strategist.
[AS] If Johnson succeeds, he'll have unveiled a new formula for the Western right: Make no
apologies for your own country and culture; toughen immigration laws; increase public
spending on the poor and on those who are "just about managing"; increase taxes on the very
rich and redistribute to the poor; focus on manufacturing and new housing; ignore the woke;
and fight climate change as the Tories are (or risk losing a generation of support).
[RD] I have no idea why the Republicans are so damned silent on wokeness, including the
transgender madness. No doubt about it, the American people have accepted gay marriage and
gay rights, broadly. But the Left will not accept this victory in the culture war. They
cannot help bouncing the rubble, and driving people farther than they are willing to go, or
that they should have to go. It's the elites -- and not just academic elites. Every week I
get at least two e-mails from readers sending me examples of transgender wokeness taking over
their professions -- especially big business. People hate this pronoun crap, but nobody dares
to speak out against it, because they are afraid of being doxxed, cancelled, or at least
marginalized in the workplace.
[RD] My friend said (I paraphrase):
"Can you blame people for not answering pollsters' questions? Everybody is told all the
time that the things they believe, and the things they worry about, are backwards and
bigoted. They have learned to keep it to themselves. It's the same thing here. I hate
Donald Trump, but I'm probably going to end up voting for him, because at least he doesn't
hate my sons. I want a good future for every child -- black, Latino, white, all of them --
but the Left thinks my sons are what's wrong with the world
[RD] Boris (and Sully) style Toryism is better than nothing, isn't it? As a general rule,
in this emerging post-Christian social and political order, we conservative Christians had
better not let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the common-sense good enough.
In a bid to end the massive welfare state, the Trump administration is expected to announce
new measures Wednesday that would end food stamp benefits for nearly 750,000 low-income folks.
The new rules will make it difficult for "states to gain waivers from a requirement that
beneficiaries work or participate in a vocational training program," according to
Bloomberg sources.
Republicans have long attempted to abolish the welfare state, claiming that the
redistribution of wealth for poor people keeps them in a state of perpetual poverty. They also
claim the welfare state is a system of command and control and has been used by Democrats for
decades as a political weapon against conservatives, hence why most inner cities vote
Democrat.
House Republicans tried to cut parts of the federal food assistance program last year, but
it was quickly rejected in the Senate.
The new requirements by the Trump administration would only target "able-bodied" recipients
who aren't caring for children under six.
Sources said the measure would be one of three enacted by the Trump administration to wind
down the massive federal food assistance program.
The measures are expected to boot nearly 3.7 million recipients from the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Though it comes at a time when employment is in a
downturn, manufacturing has stumbled into a recession
, and the US economy could be entering a mild recession in the year ahead. As to why President
Trump wants hundreds of thousands of low-income folks off SNAP ahead of an election year while
the economy is rapidly decelerating could be an administrative error that may lead to social
instabilities in specific regions that will be affected the hardest. Then again, no turmoil
could come out of it, and it's hailed as a success during the election year.
The Department of Agriculture estimates that the new measures could save the agency $1.1
billion in year one, and $7.9 billion by year five.
Nearly 36.4 million Americans in the "greatest economy ever" are on food stamps. At least
half of all Americans have low-wage jobs, barely enough to cover living expenses, nevertheless,
service their
credit cards with record-high interest rates . The economy as a whole is undergoing
profound structural changes with automation and artificial intelligence. Tens of millions of
jobs will be lost by 2030. It's likely the collision of these forces means the welfare state is
going nowhere and will only grow in size when the next recession strikes.
Cutting food stamps for low-income folks is the right move into creating a more leaner
government, but there are severe social implications that could be triggered if the new
measures are passed.
And while President Trump wants to slash the welfare state for poor people, his supply-side
policies and bailouts of corporate America have been record-setting in some respects.
Actions by the administration clearly show that corporate welfare for Wall Street elites is
more important than welfare for low-income folks. Perfect Storm: Trump Admin To Cut 750,000
From Food Stamps Ahead Of Recession
this is one of the most shameful acts for any president, especially a billionaire. If he
wants to save a billion/year, cut it from military. Or increase staff at SNAP to check for
fraud, but this is really shameful. I think it would've been better to raise tariff on China
and use that money to increase SNAP not decrease it
What's the need in cutting foodstamps? You can take every able-bodied recipient and have
them work a reasonable number of hours per week in a fair exchange. Plenty of work to be had
and you could do it WPA style where those of certain skills could apply them.
And if you want to cut welfare, START WITH CORPORATE WELFARE
This is a positive development in terms of the nuclear family. Women can't just abscond
with the kids and her husband's alimony if she knows she will have to actually get a job to
pay for her own food. I'm sick of paying taxes to support whore women and their bastard
children.
"The Department of Agriculture estimates that the new measures could save the agency $1.1
billion in year one, and $7.9 billion by year five."
Today's Repo operation by the Fed is $70.1 Billion. The $1.1 Billion in annual savings due
to this cut is about 1.5% of what the Fed pumped into the Repo market just today. I'm all for
cutting out the fraud. If you can work, then you should work. Don't work? Don't eat! But our
economy is a Service Sector for the most part now, and the wages suck for a big part in the
Service Sector. Wages overall have been nearly flat for about 30 years. How about we cut the
welfare **** to the banks, Wall Street? That would save trillions not just billions. Typical
DC. Fix problems while ******* over the little people, and continuing corporate welfare all
the while. This **** so needs to burn up!
great... outsource manufacturing, sign new trade deals to off shore more jobs, ramp up the
stock market for the rich, waste trillions on destabilizing other nations, give israel all
they want, print money to infinity, ask for zero interest rate.. and a billion per year to
feed poor people is too much.. Trump is in touch with the little guy
Trump will lose 2020... give the 750,000 guns and ammo and some food and water... and a
map to DC... Soros can provide the buses...
In a bid to end the massive welfare state, the Trump administration is expected to
announce new measures Wednesday that would end food stamp benefits for nearly 750,000
low-income folks
and yet Trump is crying for negative interest rates so the 0.1% can continue getting the
welfare they deserve ?
The new rules will make it difficult for "states to gain waivers from a requirement that
beneficiaries work or participate in a vocational training program," according to
Bloomberg sources.
And... those are actually the OLD rules, which are still on the books, but which Obama
waived by EO. I'm glad 750,00 are being cut from the roles.
Trump Admin To Cut 750,000 From Food Stamps Ahead Of Recession
OK, so I have to ask: What recession? Well, the coming one, obviously! So let's logic this
out. You wouldn't cut food stamps IN a recession (political suicide), so what's your
alternative? You're either in a recession or you're on your way to the next one which will
happen eventually, right? So, when would you be able to cut food stamps? I guess never by
that logic.
"... Trying to head off redivision of the world into nationalist trade blocks by removing Trump via dubiously democratic upheavals (like color revolutions) with more or less fictional quasi-scandals as pro-Russian treason or anti-Ukrainian treason (which is "Huh?" on the face of it,) is futile. It stems from a desire to keep on "free" trading despite the secular stagnation that has set in, hoping that the sociopolitical nowhere (major at least) doesn't collapse until God or Nature or something restores the supposedly natural order of economic growth without end/crisis. ..."
"... I think efforts to keep the neoliberal international WTO/IMF/World Bank "free" trading system is futile because the lower orders are being ordered to be satisfied with a permanent, rigid class system ..."
"... If the pie is to shrink forever, all the vile masses (the deplorables) are going to hang together in their various ways, clinging to shared identity in race or religion or nationality, which will leave the international capitalists hanging, period. "Greed is good" mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to be very destructive. Saying "Greed is good," then expecting selflessness from the lowers is not high-minded but self-serving. Redistribution of wealth upward has been terribly destructive to social cohesion, both domestically and in the sense of generosity towards foreigners. ..."
"... The pervasive feeling that "we" are going down and drastic action has to be taken is probably why there hasn't been much traction for impeachment til now. If Biden, shown to be shady in regards to Hunter, is nominated to lead the Democratic Party into four/eight years of Obama-esque promise to continue shrinking the status quo for the lowers, Trump will probably win. Warren might have a better chance to convince voters she means to change things (despite the example of Obama,) but she's not very appealing. And she is almost certainly likely to be manipulated like Trump. ..."
"... I *think* that's more or less what likbez, said, though obviously it's not the way likbez wanted to express it. I disagree strenuously on some details, like Warren's problem being a schoolmarm, rather than being a believer in capitalism who shares Trump's moral values against socialism, no matter what voters say. ..."
The headline will become operative in December, if as expected, the Trump Administration
maintains its refusal to nominate new judges
to the WTO appellate panel . That will render the WTO unable to take on new cases, and
bring about an effective return to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) which
preceded the WTO .
An interesting sidelight is that Brexit No-Dealers have been keen on the merits of trading
"on WTO terms", but those terms will probably be unenforceable by the time No Deal happens (if
it does).
likbez 10.27.19 at 11:22 pm
That's another manifestation of the ascendance of "national neoliberalism," which now is
displacing "classic neoliberalism."
Attempts to remove Trump via color revolution mechanisms (Russiagate, Ukrainegate) are
essentially connected with the desire of adherents of classic neoliberalism to return to the
old paradigm and kick the can down the road until the cliff. I think it is impossible because
the neoliberal elite lost popular support (aka support of deplorables) and now is hanging in
the air. "Greed is good" mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to
be very destructive.
That's why probably previous attempts to remove Trump were unsuccessful. And if corrupt
classic neoliberal Biden wins Neoliberal Dem Party nomination, the USA probably will get the
second term of Trump. Warren might have a chance as "Better Trump then Trump" although she
proved so far to be pretty inept politician, and like "original" Trump probably can be easily
coerced by the establishment, if she wins.
All this weeping and gnashing of teeth by "neoliberal Intelligentsia" does not change the
fact that neoliberalism entered the period of structural crisis demonstrated by "secular
stagnation," and, as such, its survival is far from certain. We probably can argue only about
how long it will take for the "national neoliberalism" to dismantle it and what shape or form
the new social order will take.
That does not mean that replacing the classic neoliberalism the new social order will be
better, or more just. Neoliberalism was actually two steps back in comparison with the New
Deal Capitalism that it replaced. It clearly was a social regress.
John, I am legitimate curious what you find "exactly right" in the comment above. Other than
the obvious bit in the last line about new deal vs neoliberalism, I would say it is
completely wrong, band presenting an amazingly distorted view of both the last few years and
recent history.
Neo-liberalism is not a unified thing. Right wing parties are not following the original
(the value of choice) paradigm of Milton Friedman that won the argument during the 1970s
inflation panic, but have implemented a deceitful bait and switch strategy, followed by
continually shifting the goalposts – claiming – it would of worked but we weren't
pure enough.
But parts of what Milton Friedman said (for instance the danger of bad micro-economic
design of welfare systems creating poverty traps, and the inherent problems of high tariff
rates) had a kernel of truth. (Unfortunately, Friedman's macro-economics was almost all wrong
and has done great damage.)
"In that context it felt free to override national governments on any issue that
might affect international trade, most notably environmental policies."
Not entirely sure about that. The one case where I was informed enough to really know
detail was the China and rare earths WTO case. China claimed that restrictions on exports of
separated but otherwise unprocessed rare earths were being made on environmental grounds.
Rare earth mining is a messy business, especially the way they do it.
Well, OK. And if such exports were being limited on environmental grounds then that would
be WTO compliant. Which is why the claim presumably.
It was gently or not pointed out that exports of things made from those same rare earths
were not limited in any sense. Therefore that environmental justification might not be quite
the real one. Possibly, it was an attempt to suck RE using industry into China by making rare
earths outside in short supply, but the availability for local processing being unrestricted?
Certainly, one customer of mine at the time seriously considered packing up the US factory
and moving it.
China lost the WTO case. Not because environmental reasons aren't a justification for
restrictions on trade but because no one believed that was the reason, rather than the
justification.
I don't know about other cases – shrimp, tuna – but there is at least the
possibility that it's the argument, not the environment, which wasn't sufficient
justification?
Neoliberalism gets used as a generalized term of abuse these days. Not every political and
institutional development of the last 40 years comes down to the worship of the free market.
In the EU, East Asia, and North America, some of what has taken place is the
rationalization of bureaucratic practices and the weakening of archaic localisms. Some of
these developments have been positive.
In this respect, neoliberalism in the blanket sense used by Likbez and many others is like
what the the ancien regime was, a mix of regressive and progressive tendencies. In the
aftermath of the on-going upheaval, it is likely that it will be reassessed and some of its
features will be valued if they manage to persist.
I'm thinking of international trade agreements, transnational scientific organizations,
and confederations like the European Union.
steven t johnson 10.29.19 at 12:29 am
If I may venture to translate @1?
Right-wing populism like Orban, Salvini, the Brexiteers are sweeping the globe and this is
more of the same.
Trying to head off redivision of the world into nationalist trade blocks by removing
Trump via dubiously democratic upheavals (like color revolutions) with more or less fictional
quasi-scandals as pro-Russian treason or anti-Ukrainian treason (which is "Huh?" on the face
of it,) is futile. It stems from a desire to keep on "free" trading despite the secular
stagnation that has set in, hoping that the sociopolitical nowhere (major at least) doesn't
collapse until God or Nature or something restores the supposedly natural order of economic
growth without end/crisis.
I think efforts to keep the neoliberal international WTO/IMF/World Bank "free" trading
system is futile because the lower orders are being ordered to be satisfied with a permanent,
rigid class system .
If the pie is to shrink forever, all the vile masses (the deplorables) are going to
hang together in their various ways, clinging to shared identity in race or religion or
nationality, which will leave the international capitalists hanging, period. "Greed is good"
mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to be very destructive.
Saying "Greed is good," then expecting selflessness from the lowers is not high-minded but
self-serving. Redistribution of wealth upward has been terribly destructive to social
cohesion, both domestically and in the sense of generosity towards foreigners.
The pervasive feeling that "we" are going down and drastic action has to be taken is
probably why there hasn't been much traction for impeachment til now. If Biden, shown to be
shady in regards to Hunter, is nominated to lead the Democratic Party into four/eight years
of Obama-esque promise to continue shrinking the status quo for the lowers, Trump will
probably win. Warren might have a better chance to convince voters she means to change things
(despite the example of Obama,) but she's not very appealing. And she is almost certainly
likely to be manipulated like Trump.
Again, despite the fury the old internationalism is collapsing under stagnation and
weeping about it is irrelevant. Without any real ideas, we can only react to events as
nationalist predatory capitals fight for their new world.
I'm not saying the new right wing populism is better. The New Deal/Great Society did more
for America than its political successors since Nixon et al. The years since 1968 I think
have been a regression and I see no reason–alas–that it can't get even worse.
I *think* that's more or less what likbez, said, though obviously it's not the way
likbez wanted to express it. I disagree strenuously on some details, like Warren's problem
being a schoolmarm, rather than being a believer in capitalism who shares Trump's moral
values against socialism, no matter what voters say.
It is a particular mutation of the original concept similar to mutation of socialism into
national socialism, when domestic policies are mostly preserved (including rampant
deregulation) and supplemented by repressive measures (total surveillance) , but in foreign
policy "might make right" and unilateralism with the stress on strictly bilateral regulations
of trade (no WTO) somewhat modifies "Washington consensus". In other words, the foreign
financial oligarchy has a demoted status under the "national neoliberalism" regime, while the
national financial oligarchy and manufactures are elevated.
And the slogan of "financial oligarchy of all countries, unite" which is sine qua
non of classic neoliberalism is effectively dead and is replaced by protection racket of
the most political powerful players (look at Biden and Ukrainian oligarchs behavior here
;-)
> I think every sentence in that comment is either completely wrong or at least
debatable. And is likbez actually John Hewson, because that comment reads like one of John
Hewson's commentaries
> Most obviously, to define Warren and Trump as both being neoliberals drains the
term of any meaning
You are way too fast even for a political football forward ;-).
Warren capitalizes on the same discontent and the feeling of the crisis of neoliberalism
that allowed Trump to win. Yes, she is a much better candidate than Trump, and her policy
proposals are better (unless she is coerced by the Deep State like Trump in the first three
months of her Presidency).
Still, unlike Sanders in domestic policy and Tulsi in foreign policy, she is a neoliberal
reformist at heart and a neoliberal warmonger in foreign policy. Most of her policy proposals
are quite shallow, and are just a band-aid.
> Neoliberalism gets used as a generalized term of abuse these days. Not every
political and institutional development of the last 40 years comes down to the worship of
the free market.
This is a typical stance of neoliberal MSM, a popular line of attack on critics of
neoliberalism.
Yes, of course, not everything political and institutional development of the last 40
years comes down to the worship of the "free market." But how can it be otherwise? Notions of
human agency, a complex interaction of politics and economics in human affairs, technological
progress since 1970th, etc., all play a role. But a historian needs to be able to somehow
integrate the mass of evidence into a coherent and truthful story.
And IMHO this story for the last several decades is the ascendance and now decline of
"classic neoliberalism" with its stress on the neoliberal globalization and opening of the
foreign markets for transnational corporations (often via direct or indirect (financial)
pressure, or subversive actions including color revolutions and military intervention) and
replacement of it by "national neoliberalism" -- domestic neoliberalism without (or with a
different type of) neoliberal globalization.
Defining features of national neoliberalism along with the rejection of neoliberal
globalization and, in particular, multiparty treaties like WTO is massive, overwhelming
propaganda including politicized witch hunts (via neoliberal MSM), total surveillance of
citizens by the national security state institutions (three-letter agencies which now
acquired a political role), as well as elements of classic nationalism built-in.
The dominant ideology of the last 30 years was definitely connected with "worshiping of
free markets," a secular religion that displaced alternative views and, for several decades
(say 1976 -2007), dominated the discourse. So worshiping (or pretense of worshiping) of "free
market" (as if such market exists, and is not a theological construct -- a deity of some
sort) is really defining feature here.
This is too idealizing Trump coverage. Whel thestrggle with the Deep state is real, Trump
like Obama before him proved to be "betrayer of his election promises in chief" rather then the
fighter. Also the oligarchs who financed his election such as Adelson were most argent
Zionists, which exclude any real change from day one.
The New York Times on Thursday published a remarkable piece that essentially
acknowledged the existence of an American "deep state" and its implacable hostility to Donald
Trump. The Times writers (fully five on the byline: Peter Baker, Lara Jakes, Julian E.
Barnes, Sharon LaFraniere, and Edward Wong) certainly don't decry the existence of this deep
state, as so many conservatives and Trump supporters do. Nor do they refrain from the kinds
of value-charged digs and asides against Trump that have illuminated the paper's consistent
bias against the president from the beginning.
But they do portray the current impeachment drama as the likely denouement of a struggle
between the outsider Trump and the insider administrative forces of government. In so doing,
they implicitly give support to those who have argued that American foreign policy has become
the almost exclusive domain of unelected bureaucrats impervious to the views of elected
officials -- even presidents -- who may harbor outlooks different from their own.
This is a big deal because, even in today's highly charged political environment, with a
sitting president under constant guerrilla attack, few have been willing to acknowledge any
such deep state phenomenon. When in the spring of 2018, The National Interest asked 12
presumed experts -- historians, writers, former government officials, and think tank mavens
-- to weigh in on whether there was in fact such a thing as a deep state, eight said no, two
waffled with a "sort of" response, and only two said yes. Former Colorado senator Gary Hart
made fun of the whole concept, warning of "sly devils meeting in the furnace room after
hours, passing out assignments for subverting the current administration."
But now the Times ' Baker et al weigh in with an analysis saying that, yes, Trump
has been battling something that some see as a deep state, and the deep state is winning. The
headline: "Trump's War on the 'Deep State' Turns Against Him." There's an explanatory subhed
that reads: "The impeachment inquiry is in some ways the culmination of a battle between the
president and the government institutions he distrusted and disparaged."
As the Times reporters put it in the story text, "The House impeachment inquiry into
Mr.Trump's efforts to force Ukraine to investigate Democrats is the climax of a 33-month
scorched-earth struggle between a president with no record of public service and the
government he inherited but never trusted." Leaving aside the requisite rapier thrust at the
president ("with no record of public service"), this is a pretty good summation of the Trump
presidency -- the story of entrenched government bureaucrats and a president who sought to
curb their power. Or, put another way, the story of a president who sought to rein in the
deep state and a deep state that sought to destroy his presidency.
Baker and his colleagues clearly think the president is on the ropes. They quote
Virginia's Democratic Representative Gerald Connolly as saying the nation is headed toward a
kind of "karmic justice," with the House impeachment inquiry now giving opportunity to
once-anonymous officials to "speak out, speak up, testify about and against."
Connolly and the Times reporters are probably right. The House seems headed
inexorably toward impeachment. The president's struggle against the deep state appears now to
be a lost cause. To prevail, he needed to marshal far more public support for his agenda --
including curtailment of the deep state -- than he proved capable of doing. He is a
beleaguered president and is likely to remain so throughout the remainder of his term.
The reporters note that Trump sought from the beginning to minimize the role of career
officials. He gave more ambassadorships to political appointees -- "the highest rate in
history," say the reporters (without noting that Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon
Johnson, and Ronald Reagan weren't far behind). The result, they write, has been "an exodus
from public service." They quote a "nonpartisan organization" saying the Trump
administration lost nearly 1,200 senior career service employees in its first 18 months --
roughly 40 percent more than during President Barack Obama's first year and a half in
office.
The reporters reveal a letter from 36 former foreign service officers to Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo complaining that he had "failed to protect civil servants from political
retaliation" and citing the removal of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Another
letter signed by more than 270 former employees of the U.S. Agency for International
Development expressed anger at the treatment of public servants and the president's "cavalier
(and quite possibly corrupt) approach to making foreign policy."
The tone of the Times piece seems to suggest these expressions and actions constitute a
kind of indictment of Trump. But a more objective appraisal would be that it is merely the
outward manifestation of that "33-month scorched-earth struggle" the Times was talking
about. Does a president have a right to fire an ambassador? How serious an offense is it
when he appoints political figures to ambassadorships at a rate slightly higher than some
previous presidents? If foreign policy careerists decide to leave the government because they
don't like the president's effort to rein in foreign policy careerists, is that a black mark
on the president -- or merely the natural result of a fundamental intragovernmental
struggle?
But the Times reporters give the game away more explicitly in cataloguing a list of
instances where those careerists sought to undermine the president because they found his
policy decisions contemptible. "While many career employees have left," writes the
Times , " some of those who stayed have resisted some of Mr. Trump's initiatives."
When the president canceled large war games with South Korea, the military held them anyway
-- only on a smaller scale and without fanfare. Diplomats negotiated an agreement before a
NATO summit to foreclose any Trump action based on a different outlook. When the White House
ordered foreign aid frozen this year, agency officials quietly worked with Congress to get it
restored. State Department officials enlisted congressional allies to hinder Trump's efforts
to initiate weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other nations.
Further, as the Times writes, "When transcripts of [Trump's] telephone calls with the
leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked, it convinced him that he could not trust the
career staff and so records of subsequent call were stashed away in a classified
database." And that was very early in his presidency, about the time Trump also
learned there was a nasty dossier out there that was designed to provide grist for anyone
interested in undermining or destroying his presidency.
And of course, now governmental officials are lining up before the House impeachment panel
to slam the president over his effort to get Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rival Joe
Biden and Biden's son, Hunter, and his apparently related decision to hold up $391 million in
security aid to Ukraine. As I have written in this space previously, this outlandish
action by Trump constituted a profound lapse in judgment that was a kind of dare for
opposition Democrats to fire off the impeachment cannon. And fire it off they have. "Now,"
writes the Times , "[Trump] faces the counteroffensive."
But that doesn't take away from the central point of the Times story -- that Trump and the
deep state have been in mortal combat since the beginning of his administration. And the
stakes are huge.
Trump wanted to restore at least somewhat cordial relations with Russia,
whereas the deep state considered that the height of folly. Trump wanted to get out of
Afghanistan, whereas the deep state totally opposed such a move. Trump viewed America's role
in Syria as focused on defeating ISIS, whereas the deep state wanted to continue favoring the
overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Trump was wary of letting events in Ukraine
draw America into a direct confrontation with Russia, whereas the deep state wants to wrest
Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence even if it means opening tensions with the Bear.
Trump wanted to bring China to account for its widespread abuse of normal trading practices,
whereas the deep state clung to "free trade'' even in the face of such abuse.
These are big issues facing America. And the question hovering over the country as the
impeachment drama proceeds is: are these matters open to debate in America? Or will the deep
state suppress any such debate? And can a president -- any president -- pursue the Trump
policy options without being subjected to the powerful yet subtle machinations of a wily
bureaucracy bent on preserving its status and outlook?
Trump has been the boss for 33 months. He promised to "lock up corrupt Hillary and drain
the swamp". All he has done is play the victim as though he is a powerless outsider. That
is what Democrats do. Maybe, Trump is really a Democrat ?
And now, according to the latest news, Trump will send tanks into Syria to help the Kurds
secure the oil for Israel. It's hard to understand why the Elders of the Deep State want to
impeach Trump. He has done everything they wanted, moved the embassy, gave Syria's Golan
Heights to Israel, never criticizes the illegal settlements in Palestine. What else do they
want from him?
"... This "man" has never been anything else but a grifter and giant con. Virtually everything he has done, he's done to enrich himself and his family. That is, besides deconstruct the U$ govt. to enrich his class of people, (the malignantly rich) by dialing back regulations that protect everyday Americans from the greed of the mega-corporations. ..."
"... Trump had long announced that the U.S. military will leave Syria. He had made no promises to the Kurds. The State Department official did not do his job but contradicted Trump's policies. ..."
Commentator ben and others
critizised yesterday's post:
b, I've been a participant at this site for 14yrs, and I don't believe I've ever seen your
take on any subject more "off base", than your take on DJT.
This "man" has never been anything else but a grifter and giant con. Virtually everything
he has done, he's done to enrich himself and his family. That is, besides deconstruct the U$
govt. to enrich his class of people, (the malignantly rich) by dialing back regulations that
protect everyday Americans from the greed of the mega-corporations.
He's a sycophant for the corporate monsters who now own the U$A. Anything and everything
he's done, isn't because he is such an egalitarian, it's for his personal enrichment, and the
monsters he works for.
When they're done with him, they'll throw him under the bus, just like all the rest of
us...
I agree with ben's characterization of Trump. I dislike most of his policies. But
that does not change the fact that Donald Trump is the elected president of the United States
and that he is thereby entitled to direct its foreign policies as he sees fit.
Ben's and my opinion about Trump do not invalidate the point I made. Trump policies,
especially in international relations, are getting sabotaged or co-opted by the Borg ,
the unelected establishment in the various departments and think tanks. This is a dangerous
phenomenon that, more or less, hinders every elected president, especially those who want to
make peace. It should be resisted.
The people in leading positions of the executive work "at the pleasure of the president".
Their task is to execute his policies. When they refrain from doing so or implement their own
preferences they create a mess.
Consider two additional examples, both published yesterday, which describe how James
Jeffrey, the Special Representative for Syria Engagement, tried to
sabotage Trump's decision to leave Syria and, while doing that, misled the Kurds:
A State Department official told a senior Syrian Kurdish leader during a meeting in
Washington that the United States would not fully withdraw its forces from northeast Syria
and advised her administration not to engage with Bashar al-Assad's government or with
Russia.
According to two sources familiar with the Monday, October 22 meeting, a senior member of
Washington's diplomatic team is said to have become angry and told Ilham Ahmed, President of
the Executive Committee of the Syrian Democratic Council, that the U.S. will not allow the
SDC to arrange a deal with the Assad regime or Russia for protection against the Turkey-led
attack.
...
SDC officials told The Defense Post that American officials in the past have promised they
would not withdraw U.S. forces until a political settlement was in place to secure their
future in the Syrian political system.
Trump had long announced that the U.S. military will leave Syria. He had made no promises to
the Kurds. The State Department official did not do his job but contradicted Trump's
policies.
The National Interest has learned from multiple sources about tense meetings between
SDC diplomats and State Department officials who oversee the Trump administration's policy on
Syria. The State Department repeatedly pushed for the SDC to work with Turkish-backed
Islamist rebels while berating Syrian Kurdish officials and refusing to listen to their
concerns, according to multiple sources.
One source with firsthand knowledge of the screaming session told the National
Interest that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joel Rayburn, who is a special envoy
for Syria, yelled at SDC officials and broke a pencil in a translator's face. Two sources
with secondhand knowledge confirmed this version of events.
"[Rayburn] loves the Syrian Islamist groups," one of the three sources said. "He thinks
they can counter Iran. He is dreaming."
"He is pushing [the SDC] to meet with jihadists," the source added.
To tell the anarcho-marxist YPG/PKK Kurds to unite with Erdogan's Jihadis is an absolutely
crazy idea. Neither the Kurds nor Erdogan would ever agree to a partnership. These were
impossible policies. They made no sense at all.
Jeffrey and his shop clearly worked against Trump's orders and against U.S. interests.
Jeffrey clearly favors Turkey where he once worked as U.S. ambassador and, above all,
Israel:
In addition to the uptick in tense verbal exchanges, the three different sources described to
the National Interest how State Department officials attempted to condemn the brutal
murder of Kurdish-Syrian politician Hevrin Khalaf only to have their efforts waylayed by
Ambassador James Jeffrey, who oversees anti-ISIS efforts. Jeffrey blocked the statement, they
said.
...
Now, even as U.S. troops are stepping aside to allow Turkey to attack U.S.-backed Syrian
Kurdish forces, Jeffrey's team is floating plans to peel off Arab components of the Syrian
Democratic Forces to build a counter-Iran force far from the Turkish border.
It is Jeffrey who is pressing for a continued U.S. occupation of Syria's oilfields. These
are not Trump's policies, but contradictions to them.
When [Trump in December 2018] told his advisers that he wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from
Syria, he meant it. The message should have been clear: devise an orderly withdrawal plan.
But that is not what happened. Instead, efforts and attention were geared towards U.S.
forces remaining indefinitely in Syria.
One can criticize Trump for not selecting advisors and envoys who follow his directions. But
Trump is a New Yorker businessman and not a politician with decades of experience in
Washington. He does not know who he can trust. He has to proceed by trial and error until he
finds people who are willing to go work with him against those permanent powers that usually
drive U.S. foreign policy.
In a congress hearing yesterday James Jeffrey
admitted (vid) that Trump did not consult him before his phone call with Erdogan.
Erdogan could show that he was fighting against the PKK terrorists and prevented their
attempts to become a proto-state. Trump could hold his campaign promise of removing U.S.
troops from useless foreign interventions. Syria regained its northeast and the important
economic resources of that area. Russia gained global prestige and additional influence in
the Middle East.
We will have to wait for Trump's (and Putin's) memoir to learn how much of this has been
coordinated behind the scenes.
I for one count this as a major foreign policy achievement for Trump and I am happy with
this
outcome .
With awareness and foresight, this incisive article on the US empire and the concurrent
demise of democracy in America was published on February 15, 2017 shortly after Trump's
presidential inauguration.
In the words of Julius Caesar , "you cannot build an Empire with a Republic."
" In order to obtain and hold power a man must love it. Thus the effort to get it is not
likely to be coupled with goodness, but with the opposite qualities of pride, craft and
cruelty. Without exalting self and abasing others, without hypocrisy, lying, prisons,
fortresses, penalties, killing, no power can arise or hold its own." Leo Tolstoy
(1828-1910), (in 'The Kingdom of God is Within You' 1894.)
"The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful
rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many
lunatics and most of the great men of history." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), (in The
Conquest of Happiness, ch. 1, 1930.)
" Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him
power. " Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th President of the United States, 1861-65; (N. B.:
Originally found and attributed to Lincoln in a biography entitled " Abraham Lincoln, the
Backwoods Boy " by Horatio Alger Jr., pub. in 1883.)
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged
against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad." James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the US Constitution, 4th American President, (in a letter to Thomas
Jefferson, May 13, 1798.)
" When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the
cross." Sinclair Lewis (1885-1951), (It Can't Happen Here, 1935, a novel about the election
of a fascist to the American presidency.)
When 46.1% of Americans who
voted , in November 2016, to elect a real estate magnate in the person of Donald Trump as
U.S. President, they did not know precisely what they were buying, because, as the quote above
says, we really know how a politician will behave only once he or she assumes power. Americans
surely did not expect that the promised "change" the Republican presidential candidate
envisioned and promised was going to be, in fact, "chaos" and "turmoil" in the U.S.
government.
President Donald Trump
(1946- ) has surrounded himself with three politically inexperienced Rasputin-like advisers,
i.e. his young pro-Israel Jewish son-in-law Jared
Kushner (1981- ), advising on foreign policy and acting as a speech writer, and his far
right media executive and chief political strategist Steve
Bannon (1953- ) with an apocalyptic worldview, who is, moreover, a voting permanent member
of the National Security Council (
NSC ).
Stephen Miller (1985- ), 31, also a young inexperienced senior White House adviser,
completes the trio. He is working with Jared Kushner for domestic affairs and is also a Trump
speechwriter.
Stephen Miller (1985- ) Jared Kushner (1981- )
Three weeks after his inauguration, President Trump has turned out to be a much more erratic
politician than could have been expected, even after all the inanities he uttered during the
U.S. Presidential campaign.
I, for one, thought that once elected president and installed in the White House, he would
abandon his tweeting eccentricities. -- I was wrong .
Stephen Bannon (1953- )
In fact, for a few weeks after inauguration day, on January 20, 2017, before the nominated
secretaries of various government departments were confirmed by the Senate, and anxious to "
get the show going ", the Trump White House behaved like an imperial junta, issuing a
string of executive
orders and memos . The objective, seemingly, was to force the hands of the responsible
departments and of the elected Congress, and to bend the entire U.S. bureaucracy to its agenda.
It may have gone too far.
Indeed, when the heads of important departments
like the Department of Defense ( James Mattis, right) and the State Department ( Rex Tillerson
) were confirmed and assumed their functions, President Trump changed his mind on many policies
about Israel ,
China ,
the Iran
Deal etc.
U.S. courts have also thrown a monkey wrench in the blanket executive order closing the
U.S. borders without recourse to the citizens of seven Muslim countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran,
Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen), for spurious " security reasons ".
Let us recall how the inexperienced Trump White House has created chaos during the first
weeks following inauguration day.
President Donald Trump has shown a propensity to govern by decree with a minimum input from
government departments and from the elected Congress
A dangerous and potentially disastrous approach to government, in a democracy, occurs when a
leader adopts the practice of
governing by decree , without constitutional constraints, thus forcing the hands of
responsible departments, of the elected Congress and submitting the entire U.S. bureaucracy to
his will by governing as an autocrat. If it were to continue on that road, the Trump
administration could turn out to be more like a would-be imperial presidency than a
responsible democratic government.
This term was first coined by historian Arthur Schlesinger
Jr. in his 1973 book The Imperial Presidency , in
response to President Richard Nixon's attempt to extend the power of the U.S. president,
declaring " when the president does it, that means it is not illegal ". In my own 2003
book The New
American Empire , I dealt with the issue of American presidents having usurped over time
the power to adopt a policy of global intervention, and the power to launch wars of aggression
at will, with a minimum input from Congress.
President Trump seems to want to outdo President Nixon in considering the White House as the
primary center of political power within the American government, contrary to what the
U.S.
Constitution says about the separation of powers.
To be sure, other American presidents have issued executive orders and presidential memos
early in their administration, but this was mainly to re-establish procedures that a previous
administration had abandoned. They usually did not deal with fundamental and complex policies
without debate, although many did
.
In the case of President Trump, his executive orders and presidential memos have not only
been multiple, they also have dealt with fundamental policies, without consulting and
requesting the professional input of the Secretary and of the department responsible, be it on
healthcare, abortion, international trade, immigration, oil exploration, justice, etc., and
without producing policy papers to explain the rationale behind the policy changes and without
outlining the objectives being pursued.
When such a development of governing by decree has occurred in other countries, democracy
was the loser, and the consequences for the leader and his country turned out to be
disastrous.
President Donald Trump seems to be anxious to find pretexts to pick fights with other
countries: For him, it seems to be the U.S. against the world
In a March 2007 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the future
presidential candidate Donald Trump said that President George W. Bush had been a disaster in
foreign relations and that he was " the worst American president in the history of the
United States ", adding that he " should have been impeached " because he lied his
way into a war of aggression against Iraq and sent thousands of people to their death. This is
an assessment that he has repeated on numerous occasions.
However, ironically, President Donald Trump seems to be on the same track as George W. Bush
regarding the country of Iran, using lies and
false
claims to pick a fight with that country, and in so doing, echoing the hysterical rhetoric
of Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu . He has also recklessly insulted the heads of a half dozen countries , even going so far as to
threaten the President of Mexico to invade his
country. As to his criticism of President George W. Bush, it seems that really, " it takes
one to know one "!
President Trump should be reminded of what he promised
as a presidential candidate. In a foreign policy speech delivered on Wednesday April 27, 2016,
he declared "Unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my
first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands
that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. Although not in government
service, I was totally against the war in Iraq, very proudly, saying for many years that it
would destabilize the Middle East."
President Donald Trump has been less than candid regarding the influence of the Wall Street
lobby on politicians, including himself
During the 2016 Presidential political campaign, candidate Donald Trump was very critical of
politicians who do the heavy lifting for Wall Street firms in Washington D.C. On many
occasions, Mr. Trump said that Wall Street is a symbol of a corrupt establishment that has been
robbing America's working class and enriching the elite. He also tweeted point blank, on July
28, 2016, that Secretary Hillary Clinton was " owned
by Wall Street " and that Wall Street banks had " total,
total control " over his rivals Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, implying that they were
unfit for the Office of the President. On October 19, 2016, Mr. Trump tweeted that " crooked
Hillary is nothing more than a Wall Street Puppet ", thus presenting himself as the
populist defender of the working class against the financial elite.
But guess what? One of Mr. Trump's first moves as President was to order the undoing of the
banking regulations known as the Dodd-Frank legislation , which was adopted in 2010, after the
2008 subprime financial crisis. President Trump thus quickly answered the main request made by
the very Wall Street mega banks that he had accused previously of corrupting Washington
politicians. He went even further when he named a former Goldman Sachs banker,
Steven Mnuchin ,(right) as his Treasury Secretary.
Also, Mr. Trump has reached to the mega-bank Goldman Sachs for help and support. He name Mr.
Gary Cohn (1960- ), president of
Goldman Sachs , head of the President's National Economic Council, thus making sure that
Wall Street bankers will have a big say in his administration's economic and financial
policies.
Was his lambasting of his opponents as Wall Street banks' puppets simply campaign rhetoric
without substance? That is certainly a question worth asking.
President Donald Trump's continuous attacks against the free press and against independent
judges who rule against his policies is an authoritarian approach to government and is a
violation of the separation of powers
On Monday February 6, President Trump launched a barrage of
off-the-cuff intimidating insults at the American news media, accusing them of "
refusing to report on terrorist attack s", without providing any evidence to back up
such serious accusations. He has also attempted to
intimidate judges who have to rule on the constitutionality of some of his decrees and
threatened their judiciary
independence .
Such behavior is a violation of, and contempt for the separation
of powers clause in the U.S. Constitution and is a frontal attack against the
free press .
This is not a trivial matter, because when an authoritarian regime wants to establish itself
and avoid accountability, it usually attacks the legislative and the judiciary branches of
government to pressure them to toe the line of the executive branch, and it tries to silence
the very institutions that can put the false statements of politicians to the test.
President Donald Trump has a mercantilist view of international trade, which is rejected by
nearly all economists
President Donald Trump seems to think that his country should have trade surpluses on goods
and services vis-à-vis other countries, the latter being saddled with trade deficits,
whatever the overall balance of payments of the United
States, especially its capital account, and whatever the domestic and foreign economic
circumstances. This is economically false. That is not the way adjustments in the balance of
payments of a country work, in a multilateral world.
When Donald Trump places all the emphasis on only one part of the balance of payments, the
trade balance, he misses the point. For example, if a country lives beyond its means and
borrows money from abroad, such foreign borrowing appears as an inflow of foreign capital in
the country. Such an inflow of foreign capital causes an excess of domestic spending over its
production, and that helps finance an excess of imports over exports of goods and services with
the rest of the world. The capital account of the country shows a surplus, while the trade
balance (more precisely the current account) indicates a deficit, thus balancing more or less
each other.
The main reason why the United States is registering trade deficits is because it borrows
too much from abroad.
This is partly due to the fact that the U.S. government runs huge fiscal deficits ,
spending more than its tax revenues, and borrowing money both from the private sector and from
foreigners, thus increasing the public debt. Such deficits often are the result of tax
reductions and of increased military expenditures. The fact that the world economy uses
the
U.S. dollar as a
reserve currency represents an interest-free loan that the rest of the world makes to the
United States, which allows the USA to have a chronic trade deficit. Mr. Trump and his advisers
would be wise to understand these truths of international finance.
If his administration wants to reduce the annual U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the
world, the U.S. government should balance its books and reduce its foreign borrowings.
Trade wars will not
improve the U.S. trade balance if the country keeps over-spending and keeps borrowing from
abroad. They would only make matters worse.
For many decades now, the U.S. government has piled up debt upon debt
while running continuous fiscal
deficits , mainly due to the fact that it has been waging costly wars abroad, while financing such
interventions with foreign money. This is a problem that American politicians must understand
if they don't want their country to go bankrupt. This has happened in the past to other
overextended empires ,
and there is no reason why it should not happen today when a country continuously spends more
than it produces. And wars do not produce anything, except death and destruction.
Hopes of putting an end to the Middle East chaos have greatly diminished
One of the positive results of the Trump election was the promise to end the deadly chaos in
the Middle East. During the presidential campaign and once in power, Mr. Trump threw some cold
water on that promise.
Firstly, in his March 21, 2016 speech to AIPAC , he
flattered his rich Zionist donors by announcing his intention to break with the half-century
policy of most western nations that considers the city of Jerusalem a United Nations protected
zone and an international city occupied by Arabs, Christians and Jews. He declared " we will
move the American embassy [from Tel Aviv] to the eternal capital of the Jewish people,
Jerusalem ."
Secondly, on Thursday December 15, 2016, to make sure that everybody understands that he is
one-sided in the more than half a century old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, President-elect
Trump announced his choice of a hardliner pro-Israeli settlements on privately-owned
Palestinian lands for
U.S. ambassador to Israel (in fact, David Friedman , his
former bankruptcy lawyer). The new ambassador didn't waste any time in professing that he was
looking forward to doing his job " from the U.S. embassy in Israel's eternal capital,
Jerusalem ."
And, thirdly, seemingly forgetting that he had criticized Secretary Clinton for proposing a
similar dangerously reckless policy, President Trump announced, on January 25, that he "
will absolutely do safe
zones in Syria ", seemingly without considering if it was legal to do so without the
consent of the Syrian government, and without consulting with the three principal countries
(Russia, Turkey and Iran), which had just concluded a peace plan for Syria. He opted instead to
talk to leaders of Saudi Arabia and of the United Arab Emirates -- two countries known to be
sponsoring terrorism in Syria.
The world is afraid of President Donald Trump: Doomsday Clock scientists have concluded that
humanity is just two-and-a-half minutes from the apocalypse
Late in January, the scientists in charge of the
Doomsday Clock set the clock at just two-and-a-half minutes from the apocalypse, allegedly
because of Donald Trump. They said that the businessman turned politician, with his disturbing
and ill-considered pronouncements and policies, has the potential to drive the Planet to
oblivion.
This means that they consider that the Earth is now
closer to oblivion than it has ever been since 1953, at the height of the nuclear
confrontation between the USA and the Soviet Union.
The existential threats facing the Earth now come from the loose talk about using nuclear
weapons and the proliferation of such weapons, as well as the observed acceleration of climate
change.
Conclusion
All considered, the turn of events since the election of Donald Trump has raised a number of
fears that a lot of things could go wrong in the coming years. Many of the policies advanced by
the Trump administration are the wrong remedies for the problems facing the United States and
the world. In fact, many of these ill-conceived policies are more likely to make matters worse,
possibly much worse, than to improve them.
Things seem to have begun to change somewhat with the arrival of newly confirmed secretaries
in the decision-making process and new advisers. Let us hope that cooler heads will bring
experience, knowledge and competence to a Trump administration that cruelly needs it.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
It is true that hate of financial oligarchy fuels anti-Semitism but here Trump is just one
small step since 1980 to make this situation happen. The neoliberal elite achieves some success
by trying to substitute anti-Semitism with Russophobia, but the essence of Russophobia, as
displayed anti-Semitism is the same -- this is an attempt to deflect critique of neoliberal elite
and patch the cracks in the neoliberal facade of the US society.
The problem is not Trump but neoliberalism. Krugman who is neoliberal stooge would never
admit that. In essence he is a useful idiot for financial oligarchy in in Lenin's terminology.
And always was.
The real situation is that Wall Street banks and financial oligarchs despite
overrepresentation of a particular nationality in them are interested in imposing the neo-fascist
regime on the country and will finance the leader and the party which strive to do that because
they are afraid to lose the power and money as the result of the collapse of neoliberalism. So
this 1920 in the new colorful, gadget filled packaging. Few US citizens would name US business
moguls who help the rise of Hitler. They include some well known families.
Notable quotes:
"... It's true that Trump (breaking all his campaign promises) has indeed cut taxes on the wealthy, and will surely cut them further if re-elected. By contrast, whoever the Democrats nominate is likely to raise those taxes if she or he wins the general election, perhaps substantially. ..."
"... People who've studied the extremely rich argue that money, for them, is largely not about being able to buy things but is instead a way of keeping score; their satisfaction comes not from more consumption but from overtaking their perceived peers. ..."
"... And tax cuts don't help on that dimension, since your peers get the same tax breaks you do. ..."
It's true that Trump (breaking all his campaign promises) has indeed cut taxes on the
wealthy, and will surely cut them further if re-elected. By contrast, whoever the Democrats
nominate is likely to raise those taxes if she or he wins the general election, perhaps
substantially.
But let's get real. If you're a billionaire, you don't need the extra money. At that level,
purchasing power has nothing to do with the quality of life; having a 45,000-square-foot house
instead of just 40,000, or flying to one of your multiple other residences in a bigger private
jet, won't make you significantly happier.
People who've studied
the extremely rich argue that money, for them, is largely not about being able to buy
things but is instead a way of keeping score; their satisfaction comes not from more
consumption but from overtaking their perceived peers.
And tax cuts don't help on that dimension, since your peers get the same tax breaks you
do.
More to the point, Trumpism is about much more than tax cuts: It's an attempt to end the
rule of law and impose an authoritarian, white nationalist regime. And even billionaires should
be terrified about what their lives will be like if that attempt succeeds.
...Ross is
Jewish -- and anyone Jewish has to be completely ignorant of history not to know that when
bigotry runs free, we're always next in line for persecution.
In fact, the ingredients for an American pogrom are already in place. The El Paso shooting
suspect, like many right-wing terrorists, is a believer in " replacement
theory " -- the claim that immigration is part of a vast conspiracy to replace whites with
people of color. And who's behind that conspiracy? You know who: "Jews will not replace us,"
declared the torch-carrying marchers in Charlottesville.
Is Trump a replacement theory guy? The replacement theorists think so.
... ... ...
By the way, the greed part is obvious. But it has also been clear since the Obama years that
a fair number of the superrich aren't satisfied with being immensely wealthy; they also want
adulation. They expect to be praised as heroic job creators and are enraged at any suggestion
that some of their number may have behaved badly, let alone that they may have benefited from a
rigged system.
Hence the hatred for even reasonable, pro-market progressives like, say, Elizabeth Warren.
It's not just that these progressives might make billionaires a bit poorer, but that they make
them feel small.
There is abundant academic research demonstrating that the rich are not nice people. People
driving luxury cars are more likely to cut off other cars and pedestrians instead of waiting
their turn at an intersection or crosswalk. The wealthiest 20% of Americans give
significantly less to charity as a fraction of income (1.4%) than the poorest 20 % do (3.5%),
according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Researchers have found that wealthier people
are more likely to believe that selfishness is a virtue. They are more likely to agree with
statements that say that being greedy is justified, even beneficial. The rich have a people
problem; they don't like people. Greed is a disease, but there is one good way to treat it:
with fair taxation. America's income tax, payroll tax and sales tax codes are giant Christmas
buffets for the rich that allow them to systematically dodge taxes while feigning
persecution. And the truly perverted part is that the 2017 Trump-GOP 0.1% Welfare Tax Cut Act
not only gave the 0.1% untold billions in gravy, but the 0.1% then proceeded to 're-invest'
part of that 0.1% welfare right back into the Trump-GOP corrupt campaign coffers, creating a
sickening loop of 0.1% Republican corruption of the tax code and campaign finance corruption.
In short, you can support the Grand Oligarch Party or you can support a decent American
civilization, but you can't do both. It's well past time to evict the Greed Over People party
from the American politiscape. 25 Replies
One of the most interesting things about the modern British Royal Family is how often its
members have served in the military. Another notable thing is how much they do for charity.
They needn't do anything but it seems that they take their responsibilities as the Royal
Family to heart. They do, for the most part, try to set an example to the nation they lead.
(Yes, it's a constitutional monarchy and most of the power resides in Parliament but the
family doesn't have to set any examples at all if it doesn't want to.) Here in America a
great many of our richest families do not serve the country in any way, shape or form except
one: they form PACS with innocuous names like Americans For Prosperity or Citizens for a
Sound Economy and use them to push an agenda that hurts 99% of us. We had a vice president,
Dick Cheney, who was quite happy to have a war in Iraq even though he avoided the draft
during the Vietnam War. In other words, he liked the sound of war but had no idea about what
was involved in running a war or anything else associated with a war. In America we confuse
riches with intelligence, being virtuous, and wisdom. In truth all being very rich does is to
insulate a person from the worst hardships of life. There is no reason to offer the rich
generous tax breaks. They do not spend the money; they invest it and it's not invested in us.
If they are true patriots they will pay their taxes. 8/12/2019 10:29pm
This "so called democracy" here in the U.S. has long ago been superseded by a monetized
democracy. Those making large monetary contributions to elected officials rule the day. Look
at the NRA, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc. Stephen Ross is doing what many of the moneyed class in
the U.S.A does today in order to be heard. Time for a big change, bring back the voice of the
voting public.
"People who've studied the extremely rich argue that money, for them, is largely not about
being able to buy things but is instead a way of keeping score; their satisfaction comes not
from more consumption but from overtaking their perceived peers." Veblen would find that to
be an interesting observation. If the scoring can't be seen (like having one's tenth
Citation) does it generate the same impact on one's dopamine "wealth" receptors. The truth is
that extreme wealth turns just about everyone into somewhat of a sociopath, unable to have
any empathy for "the lower orders". Oh sure, they give a lot to charity but that too is
simply a variant of conspicuous consumption. When I was an executive in a health insurance
company back in the 90's, the compensation consultants would come in and say that if the
executive team did not get more money, they would all leave to go to higher paying companies.
While this was really not true by any objective measure, the board bought it an our salaries
and bonuses exploded even though we really didn't work all that much harder. It was just free
money. So the marginal utility of that added money did not result in actually harder work.
Now think of the poor person who IS working so much harder, often multiple jobs. They
actually deserve more money. But no, it goes to the enabled wealthy. What would Marx say? Oh,
and what would Jesus say?
Rich industrialists financed the Nazis for sure and I think the other fascist governments in
Italy and Spain as I recall. They are drawn to fascism like flies. Money does not equal
brains except in tech.
Story yesterday on Marketwatch that the Walton family's wealth increases by $100 million per
day. Meanwhile many of their workers have to apply for public assistance to stay alive. A
charming time, ours.
Employee rights advocates say this Labor Day's family barbecues and union solidarity picnics
will take place in the shadow of a Trump administration that has quietly stacked the National
Labor Relations Board with anti-labor members. The federal agency is far less well-known than
the IRS or EPA, but its five presidential appointees issue rulings with often far-reaching
consequences for America's working men and women. The NLRB was created in 1935 to oversee
collective bargaining and protect labor standards; the majority of its current board have
worked for years with pro-employer firms or
on behalf of industry.
Under the Trump administration, says Henry Willis , a veteran employment rights attorney at
Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers, "They are rolling back rights as fast as they
can."
Even before Trump was elected president, labor advocates had long lamented an NLRB process
weighted towards employers who have the power of the paycheck and an array of tactics to shut
down union organizing drives. A 2009 study , published by the liberal
Economic Policy Institute think tank, found that during 57 percent of union election processes,
employers threatened to shut down their workplaces; and during 34 percent of those organizing
drives, employers fired workers and used one-on-one meetings with employees to threaten
them.
Study author Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research and a senior lecturer
at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, says those numbers have
remained steady since 2009.
Moreover, Bronfenbrenner adds, when an administration changes it's not uncommon for boards
to reverse some preceding labor decisions, but that "there's a different tone to this board in
that it is reversing long-held law. Not just changing rules but reversing decisions that had
been agreed upon for a long time."
In other words, the NLRB under Trump represents a tectonic shift in the way the agency has
traditionally operated.
Bronfenbrenner cites a recent decision that allows employers to
stop bargaining and call for a new union election each time a contract approaches
expiration -- in effect, inviting company employees to decertify their union. "[Employers] can
just say, 'I no longer believe the union has support, and then there will be an election," she
says. "Employers can do that every single time a contract expires."
Willis, who litigates on the front lines, ticks off a list illustrating a piece-by-piece
dismantling of employee rights.
"The current board has been attacking Obama board decisions on issues such as [establishing]
who's an independent contractor and who's an employee," he says, referring to a
January 2019 revision of the standard used to determine whether independent contractors are
covered by the National Labor Relations Act, which, the NLRB proclaims on its
website , was passed by Congress in 1935 "to protect the rights of employees and employers,
to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management
practices, and which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S.
economy."
The January decision makes it less likely that the contractors will be given the same rights
as employees.
"That's a big issue," Willis says. "Especially with the gig economy."
Another 2017 NLRB decision upended the
definition of bargaining units . An employer no longer has to recognize or bargain with
smaller units within a single work location, forcing a union to do large-scale organizing.
Organizing a shoe department, Willis notes, is less daunting than organizing an entire
department store.
The Obama NLRB strove to proactively extend protections to unorganized shops -- where
workers are less likely to know their rights. "The Trump board is taking a reactionary approach
-- pulling back wherever possible," Willis says.
* * *
Currently operating with a vacant seat , the five-member board consists of three Republicans
and Obama appointee Lauren McFerran, and it's set to term out in December. Conservative
interests have urged President Trump to wait until McFerran leaves and then to fill the two
empty seats to lock in a unanimous pro-employer majority.
Also in the works is a restructuring of the NLRB that would centralize decision-making in
Washington and bring decisions now investigated and adjudicated at the regional level under
scrutiny there.
Trump general counsel appointee Peter Robb issued a 2017 memo directing NLRB regional
offices to submit to his Division of Advice for review cases
involving "significant legal issues
.
" In
2018
Robb
announced an intention to reorganize the agency's 26 regional offices into a smaller number
of districts that report directly to Robb -- who could then present the issues to the NLRB in a
way to give cover to the board to reverse local decisions and create precedent.
"The current general counsel has been trying to shift decision-making power from the regions
to D.C. and creating a new layer of administration to give him more control over how the
regions handle unfair labor practice charges," says Willis. "It hasn't been carried out, but
the general counsel certainly has a big foot and brings it down much more frequently these
days."
It's not all bleak news for labor, however. Unions are now organizing and representing
contract workers, including hundreds of thousands of janitors, whether or not the NLRB
designates them as employees, says Bronfenbrenner.
She sees the most vibrant aspects today's labor movement in industries where the majority
are women and men and women of color -- and notes that those constituencies were largely
shunned by organized labor when it was at the height of its strength.
"Organized labor only started getting a move on when their density had gone down below down
to 12 percent and that's a little late. If they had done it when their density was 50 percent
or 45 percent, they could have used their bargaining power."
"... Almost four decades ago then-candidate George H.W. Bush used the phrase "voodoo economic policy" to describe Ronald Reagan's claim that cutting taxes for the rich would pay for itself. He was more prescient than he could have imagined. ..."
"... For voodoo economics isn't just a doctrine based on magical thinking. It's the ultimate policy zombie, a belief that seemingly can't be killed by evidence. It has failed every time its proponents have tried to put it into practice, but it just keeps shambling along. In fact, at this point it has eaten the brains of every significant figure in the Republican Party. Even Susan Collins, the least right-wing G.O.P. senator (although that isn't saying much), insisted that the 2017 tax cut would actually reduce the deficit. ..."
"... During the 2016 campaign Donald Trump pretended to be different, claiming that he would actually raise taxes on the rich. Once in office, however, he immediately went full voodoo. In fact, he has taken magical thinking to a new level. ..."
"... My favorite until now came from Art Laffer, the original voodoo economist and recent recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Why did George W. Bush's tax-cutting presidency end not with a boom, but with the worst economic slump since the Great Depression? ..."
"... But Trump has gone one better. As it has become increasingly clear that the results of his tax cut were disappointing -- recent data revisions have marked down estimates of both G.D.P. and employment growth, to the point where it's hard to see more than a brief sugar high from $2 trillion in borrowing ..."
"... Officials have floated, then retracted, the idea of a cut in payroll taxes -- that is, a tax break for ordinary workers, rather than the corporations and wealthy individuals who mainly benefited from the 2017 tax cut. But such action seems unlikely, among other things because top administration officials denounced this policy idea when Obama proposed it. ..."
"... The truth is that Trump doesn't have a Plan B, and probably can't come up with one. On the other hand, he might not have to. Who needs competent policy when you're the chosen one and the king of Israel? ..."
From Voodoo Economics to Evil-Eye Economics
Are Democrats hexing the Trump boom with bad thoughts?
By Paul Krugman
Almost four decades ago then-candidate George H.W. Bush used the phrase "voodoo economic
policy" to describe Ronald Reagan's claim that cutting taxes for the rich would pay for
itself. He was more prescient than he could have imagined.
For voodoo economics isn't just a doctrine based on magical thinking. It's the ultimate
policy zombie, a belief that seemingly can't be killed by evidence. It has failed every time
its proponents have tried to put it into practice, but it just keeps shambling along. In
fact, at this point it has eaten the brains of every significant figure in the Republican
Party. Even Susan Collins, the least right-wing G.O.P. senator (although that isn't saying
much), insisted that the 2017 tax cut would actually reduce the deficit.
During the 2016 campaign Donald Trump pretended to be different, claiming that he would
actually raise taxes on the rich. Once in office, however, he immediately went full voodoo.
In fact, he has taken magical thinking to a new level.
True, whenever tax cuts fail to produce the predicted miracle, their defenders come up
with bizarre explanations for their failure.
My favorite until now came from Art Laffer, the original voodoo economist and recent
recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Why did George W. Bush's tax-cutting
presidency end not with a boom, but with the worst economic slump since the Great Depression?
According to Laffer, blame rests with Barack Obama, even though the recession began more than
a year before Obama took office. You see, according to Laffer, everyone lost confidence upon
realizing that Obama might win the 2008 election.
But Trump has gone one better. As it has become increasingly clear that the results of his
tax cut were disappointing -- recent data revisions have marked down estimates of both G.D.P.
and employment growth, to the point where it's hard to see more than a brief sugar high from
$2 trillion in borrowing -- Trump has invented ever more creative ways to blame other people.
In particular, he's now claiming that the promised boom hasn't arrived because his opponents
are hexing the economy with bad thoughts: "The Democrats are trying to 'will' the Economy to
be bad for purposes of the 2020 Election."
Can opposition politicians really cause a recession with negative thinking? This goes
beyond voodoo economics; maybe we should call it evil-eye economics.
To be fair, the claim that Democrats are hexing his boom is a secondary theme in Trump's
ranting. Mostly he has been blaming the Federal Reserve for its "crazy" interest rate hikes.
And the truth is that last year's rate increases pretty clearly were a mistake.
But blaming the Fed for the tax cut's fizzle won't wash. For one thing, the Fed has
actually raised rates less than in previous economic recoveries. Even more to the point, the
Trump economic team was expecting Fed rate hikes when it made its extravagantly optimistic
forecasts. Administration projections from a year ago envisioned 2019 interest rates
substantially higher than what we're actually seeing.
Put it this way: The Trump tax cut was supposed to create a boom so powerful that it would
not only withstand modest Fed rate hikes, but actually require such hikes to prevent
inflationary overheating. You don't get to turn around and claim betrayal when the Fed does
exactly what you expected it to do.
Aside from blaming everyone but himself, however, how will Trump deal with the failure of
his economic promises? He has taken to demanding that the Fed roll the printing presses,
slashing interest rates and buying bonds -- the actions it normally takes in the face of a
serious recession -- even as he claims that the economy remains strong, and unemployment is
in fact near a historic low.
As many people have noted, these are exactly the actions Republicans, including Trump,
denounced as "currency debasement" when unemployment was far higher than it is today and the
economy desperately needed a boost.
Since the Fed is unlikely to oblige, what else might Trump do? Officials have floated,
then retracted, the idea of a cut in payroll taxes -- that is, a tax break for ordinary
workers, rather than the corporations and wealthy individuals who mainly benefited from the
2017 tax cut. But such action seems unlikely, among other things because top administration
officials denounced this policy idea when Obama proposed it.
Trump has also suggested using executive authority to reduce taxes on capital gains (which
are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthy). This move would have the distinction of being both
ineffectual and illegal.
What about calling off the trade war that has been depressing business investment? This
seems unlikely, because protectionism is right up there with racism as a core Trump value.
And merely postponing tariffs might not help, since it wouldn't resolve the uncertainty that
may be the trade war's biggest cost.
The truth is that Trump doesn't have a Plan B, and probably can't come up with one. On the
other hand, he might not have to. Who needs competent policy when you're the chosen one and
the king of Israel?
"But blaming the Fed for the tax cut's fizzle won't wash. For one thing, the Fed has actually
raised rates less than in previous economic recoveries. Even more to the point, the Trump
economic team was expecting Fed rate hikes when it made its extravagantly optimistic
forecasts. "
Yes the Trump economic team is insane and clueless. But the Fed has been tightening since
2013 when Bernanke began tapering QE.
So now all good liberals are crying recession (which would hurt Trump in the election) but
the Fed is blameless?
Monetary policy is ineffective. Then why don't we get rid of the Fed's vaunted
independence? Then why does it matter if Trump tweets at Powell?
This isn't directed at Anne but at the general comment reader and Krugman admirer.
Done nothing EVIL bar fire 100 cruise missiles into Syria and attempting to starve
millions in Venezuela & Iran, while sucking on Bibi's ****, emboldening him to continue
on a genocidal path in the ME among other twisted fuckery.
I think Trump administration will face several defeats on may fronts they have opened very
soon. Their major issue is that they have tried to tackle many things at once, which has
created a cohesive opposition: China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and many other countries that
don't like his unilateral decisions and moves. The major blow would be from dedollaraization
down in the road. If he had problem with China, he should have dealt with it at a different
time in a different manner. Pushing Iran at the same time was a major error. One wonders what
is he thinking. On the issue of Iran; if they would have got along with Iran, they would have
made major gains. Picking wrong partners always is the issue for these in the power.
I just got this email which I think appropriate to share with fellow MoA barflies
"
Since Day 1, this administration has been seeking out opportunity after opportunity to
benefit the powerful and the privileged -- the very wealthiest Americans and big
corporations. From the $1.7 trillion tax break for giant corporations and their wealthy
executives, to allowing more pollution by oil and gas companies, to allowing insurance
companies to once again discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, the
giveaways to billion dollar corporations have been endless, while working families pay the
price.
This week, the Trump administration added another critical item to the list of attacks on
working families: Gutting the Volcker Rule firewall, a critical safeguard that protects
Americans from the consequences of high-risk Wall Street gambling.
Make no mistake. This move is a brazen attempt by big banks and their Trump-appointed
allies to reopen the Wall Street casino that led us into the Great Recession, no matter the
cost to working Americans who will lose their homes, jobs and savings when the casino goes
belly-up. That's not just unethical, it's dangerous.
Working Americans should not have to foot the bill for the big banks' casino games. That's
why I co-authored the Volcker Rule and fought to include it in the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which Congress passed to prevent Wall
Street from repeating the causes of the Great Recession. The reality is, if we let big banks
go back to the days of making huge bets on things like future stock values, foreign exchange
rates, or interest rates, working families will ultimately be the ones to pay the price.
I believe that our economy is only as strong as the bottom lines of our working families,
and that big banks shouldn't be calling the shots. Please know that I'm going to keep
fighting for an economy that works for all of us -- not just the powerful and the
privileged.
All my best,
Jeff (Merkley - Oregon Senator)
"
Our government is now controlled by the elite but not entirely silenced.
"... The current neoliberal order failed to suppress China development enough to block her from becoming the competitor (and the second largest economy.) ..."
"... That's why a faction of the USA elite decided to adopt "might makes right" policies (essentially piracy instead of international law) in a hope that it will prolong the life of the US-centered neoliberal empire. ..."
"... As much as Trump proved to be inapt politician and personally and morally despicable individual (just his known behavior toward Melania tells a lot about him; we do not need possible Epstein revelations for that) he does represent a faction of the US elite what wants this change. ..."
"... All his pro working class and pro lower middle class rhetoric was a bluff -- he is representative of faction of the US elite that is hell bent on maintaining the imperial superiority achieved after the collapse of the USSR, whatever it takes. At the expense of common people as Pentagon budget can attest. ..."
"... That also explains the appointment of Bolton and Pompeo. That are birds of the feather, not some maniacs (although they are ;-) accidentally brought into Trump administration via major donors pressure. ..."
"... In this sense Russiagate was not only a color revolution launched to depose Trump by neoliberal wing of Democratic Party and rogue, Obama-installed elements within intelligence agencies (Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.) , but also part of the struggle between the faction of the US elite that wants "muscular" policy of preservation of the empire (Trump supporters faction so to speak) and the faction that still wants to kick the can down the road via "classic neoliberalism" path (Clinton supporters faction so to speak.) ..."
It is not about the strategy. It's about the agony. The agony of the US centered global
neoliberal empire.
Trump and forces behind him realized that current set of treaties does not favor the
preservation of the empire and allows new powerful players to emerge despite all
institutionalized looting via World Bank and IMF and the imposition of Washington Consensus.
The main danger here are Germany (and EU in general) and, especially, China.
The current neoliberal order failed to suppress China development enough to block her from
becoming the competitor (and the second largest economy.)
That's why a faction of the USA elite decided to adopt "might makes right" policies
(essentially piracy instead of international law) in a hope that it will prolong the life of
the US-centered neoliberal empire.
As much as Trump proved to be inapt politician and personally and morally despicable
individual (just his known behavior toward Melania tells a lot about him; we do not need
possible Epstein revelations for that) he does represent a faction of the US elite what wants
this change.
All his pro working class and pro lower middle class rhetoric was a bluff -- he is
representative of faction of the US elite that is hell bent on maintaining the imperial
superiority achieved after the collapse of the USSR, whatever it takes. At the expense of
common people as Pentagon budget can attest.
That also explains the appointment of Bolton and Pompeo. That are birds of the feather, not
some maniacs (although they are ;-) accidentally brought into Trump administration via major
donors pressure.
In this sense Russiagate was not only a color revolution launched to depose Trump by
neoliberal wing of Democratic Party and rogue, Obama-installed elements within intelligence
agencies (Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.) , but also part of the struggle between the faction of
the US elite that wants "muscular" policy of preservation of the empire (Trump supporters
faction so to speak) and the faction that still wants to kick the can down the road via
"classic neoliberalism" path (Clinton supporters faction so to speak.)
Donald Trump will win reelection, or not, based primarily on his performance in office. The voters will ask, in their
collective judgment, such questions as: has he scored at least one major accomplishment in domestic policy? Has he
maintained strong economic growth? Has he avoided major foreign policy failures? Has he presided over a major foreign
policy victory? Is he scarred by scandal? Are Americans better off than they were before his inauguration? Is the
country better positioned in the world?
Looking at the Trump presidency through the prism of such questions, it is
possible to produce a kind of preliminary report card. Recognizing that the voters won't render their own grades for
more than a year, we can still compile a general overview of the president's likely standing when the votes are counted.
This overview suggests that he resides upon a knife's edge of political fate. Events between now and November of next
year could easily push him into defeat, though he could also squeak through to victory. But defeat is more likely.
Before we get to the report card, two general points need to be made. First, irrespective of Trump's fate next year,
he is and will remain a significant figure in American political history. He transformed the national debate by exposing
the chasm in political sensibilities between the elites of the coasts and angry Americans in the heartland. In spite of
his crude and often distasteful ways (and sometimes because of them), he created a tight knot of political sentiment
that stands antagonistic toward the elite vision of globalism, diversity, open borders, overseas dominance, and free
trade -- most of it enforced with the cudgel of political correctness.
The heartland ethos, by contrast, includes an end to illegal immigration, a more restrictionist legal immigration
system to foster the absorption of those already here, a trade system attuned to industrial America, realism and
restraint in foreign policy, respect for the country's cultural heritage, and a hostility to the insidious impact of
identity politics.
Advertisement
This is a huge chasm, yet when the 2016 campaign began, hardly a politician on the scene perceived it or understood
its ramifications. Trump did, and that got him (barely) elected. The result now is that we all now know about the chasm,
and it will be America's defining political pivot for years to come.
But if this political sagacity got Trump elected, it won't help him much in 2020. Challengers can win on talk if it
resonates sufficiently with the electorate; incumbents can only win on performance.
The second point is that, while the president enjoys the solid support of a highly loyal and unwavering contingent of
Americans, he has proven incapable of building a governing coalition. Throughout his presidency, his approval rating,
based on the aggregate numbers pulled together by the political web site FiveThirtyEight, has hovered between 39 percent
and 43 percent. This doesn't mean he can't get up to the 50 percent or so needed for reelection. Ronald Reagan's rating
was just 45 percent at this point in his presidency, and he went on to a landslide reelection win. But Trump's level of
approval has been so consistent that it is difficult to see how he might rise above it during his final months in
office.
Further, state-by-state poll numbers indicate that the president has lost considerable ground in key states needed
for reelection. According to surveys conducted by the online polling firm Civiqs, his approval rating is in negative
numbers in 10 states he carried in 2016, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Texas. None of the
states carried by Hillary Clinton seem poised to flip to the president.
This reflects Trump's general standing with the American people, and it means that he doesn't have sufficient
political juice to dominate the national debate on major issues and get Congress to take action. Trump supporters no
doubt will blame the Democrats, as presidential loyalists always do when their man can't get the job done. But in our
presidential system, chief executives don't get a pass by pointing fingers at the opposition.
Richard Nixon, a 43 percent victor in 1968, had to contend with a hostile Democratic majority in both houses of
Congress, and still amassed a record that buoyed him to a massive reelection victory in 1972. Reagan had a hostile House
Democratic majority and yet managed to galvanize the American people to such an extent that the House leadership lost
control of its own chamber, as frightened Democrats crossed over to Reagan's positions on major issues, particularly
fiscal ones.
How do presidents manage to overcome a hostile opposition? By shrewdly selecting issues to be pursued; by presenting
brilliant and coherent narrations on what those issues mean; and by deftly negotiating at the end to bring along just
enough of the opposition to carry the day. After his Democratic Party lost both houses of Congress in 1994, Bill Clinton
embarked on his brilliant "triangulation" strategy. Trump hasn't demonstrated any such capacity.
Which brings us to the report card:
Health care:
Trump failed all three of the tests for political success on this issue. He chose it
before it was ripe for serious legislative action (GOP lawmakers wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare but didn't have
anything approaching a viable replacement); he didn't explain it well because it wasn't well joined and because he
didn't seem to understand it; and he didn't seek any compromise with opposition members. Grade: D.
Immigration:
A massive Trump failure. He was the first president in decades who had enough
credibility with restrictionists to fashion a grand bargain that might have included legal status for the so-called
Dreamers (and perhaps their immediate families; not cousins and uncles). He might have also taken serious action on
other illegals in the country, on stemming the inward flow through every means possible, and on overhauling current
immigration policies, including ending family-based migration and the lottery, instituting a merit-based system, and
curbing the inflow enough to get the percentage of foreign-born people in America returned to more historical levels.
Was this even remotely possible? Perhaps not. But Trump campaigned as a man who would address the country's festering
immigration problem. That required that the issue be presented with sensitivity and clarity as to the harm that decades
of neglect have done to America. Nobody wants the United States to be a heartless country, but polls also indicate that
Democrats have come too close to open borders for the comfort of most. Therein was the opportunity.
But Trump didn't even talk to the American people about the issue; he communicated only to his base, thus ensuring
that the immigration chasm would continue with no end in sight. Grade: D.
Economic growth:
We can't issue a final grade here until the end of the semester, but prospects are
good for solid marks, even if an A doesn't appear likely. If growth continues through the third quarter of next year,
Trump will merit a solid B; if it slows, perhaps a B-; if it picks up, a B+. But an A would require the kind of growth
seen in Reagan's last six years in office (including annual percentages of 7.9, 5.6, 4.2, 4.5, and 3.8) or Clinton's
second term (4.4, 4.5, 4.9, 4.8). That isn't likely. Further, if the economy slips into recession, all bets are off.
This is a wait-and-see category. Grade: B, based on midterms, though the final exam will determine the outcome.
Trade:
Trump has taken a riverboat gamble on his trade dispute with China, which has been a commerce
thug for years -- stealing intellectual property, forcing U.S. companies in China to transfer technology, dumping goods
into U.S. markets, subsidizing state-owned companies, and manipulating its currency. White House aide Peter Navarro says
these "deadly sins" have destroyed some 70,000 factories in America and five million manufacturing jobs. China has been
bilking the United States in part to cadge vast sums of money to finance its geopolitical ambitions in Asia. There's a
strong argument that something had to be done, and only Trump among recent presidents had the fortitude to join the
issue.
In doing so, Trump has emphasized a central reality of American geopolitics, which his critics refuse to
accept -- namely that China, and not Russia, represents America's greatest long-term threat. But will the American people
and Congress accept the sacrifices that will likely be necessary to force China to change its ways? That may be
difficult for the president to pull off, given his less-than-robust standing with the American people. He's doing the
right thing in demanding reciprocal trade behavior from the Chinese, but his inability to forge a national consensus may
retard his prospects for success. Grade: Incomplete.
Foreign Policy:
Trump has not presided over any serious foreign policy failures, such as George W.
Bush's Iraq fiasco or Barack Obama's Libyan misadventure. Indeed, he has not led the country into any serious foreign
wars at all, which may be a significant accomplishment in comparison to his three predecessors. At the same time, he has
kept U.S. troops in Syria and Afghanistan beyond any worthwhile rationale. And he has not scored any significant foreign
policy successes -- nothing approaching Nixon's outreach to China or Jimmy Carter's Camp David Accords or Reagan's Cold War
breakthrough. The problem has been that he doesn't seem to possess any kind of coherent view of the world in our time.
He seems to have an instinctive understanding that the old global order is crumbling. But he doesn't have any idea of
what could or should replace this fading status quo or how America should operate in a changing world.
And Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement and seek to bring Iran to its knees economically
through "maximum pressure" could destabilize the entire Middle East even beyond George W. Bush's mindless Iraq invasion.
If so, the combustion likely won't occur until after Trump's current term, under whomever is president at the time. But
the burden of responsibility for any untoward developments emanating from that questionable policy will rest firmly upon
Trump. Grade: C-.
Scandal:
Any serious scandal that attaches to the upper reaches of an administration becomes a net
negative in the next election. It's difficult to assess the full political impact of the Russian scandal that has roiled
the nation since even before Trump was sworn in. On the one hand, the allegation of electoral "collusion" has been
exposed as a fraud. On the other, opponents have continued assaulting Trump for supposedly seeking to obstruct the
investigation. Their arguments are largely specious, but politics unfolds on the margin, and the marginal impact of all
this is likely to redound to Trump's detriment at reelection time. Besides, Trump doesn't seem to care much about how he
is perceived or about the old-style niceties of political discourse. That provides an opening for opposition arguments
about his loose ethics. Grade: C+.
General national welfare:
On those questions regarding whether Americans are better off today than
they were four years ago and whether America stands taller in the world, it's a bit of a mixed bag. The economic
statistics (growth, unemployment, job market participation, productivity, inflation, the stock market) are solid,
stemming largely from Trump's tax and regulatory policies. If they continue, the president will get general kudos from
the electorate on this crucial area of performance.
The voters' view of America's global standing is more difficult to assess. No doubt Trump's base is comfortable with
his performance on the world stage, but has he conducted himself in a way that will capture those swing voters who will
be crucial to his reelection prospects? It doesn't seem likely.
And that's reflective of the overall Trump presidency. This utterly unconventional politician who got elected in
utterly unconventional ways had an opportunity to fashion an unconventional brand of conservative politics -- wary of big
business and the nexus between government and big finance; hostile to coastal elites; protective of working class
Americans who have been abandoned and slandered by the Democratic Party; concerned about economic inequality; suspicious
of vehement libertarianism; opposed to promiscuous foreign policy adventurism; anti-globalist; nationalist; and
enthusiastic about the looming epic task of forging a new political order at home and a new geopolitical order in the
world.
Trump has demonstrated a vague sense of this opportunity, but he never seemed to grasp its complexities and nuances
or show any ability to forge a coherent strategy to make it a reality. The result: an overall grade of C. It would be a
gentleman's C if Trump were a gentleman. The question is whether the voters will grade on a curve.
"Trump has demonstrated a vague sense of this opportunity, but he never
seemed to grasp its complexities and nuances or show any ability to
forge a coherent strategy to make it a reality."
I don't think any national politician today, not Trump, not Bernie, not anyone,
really grasps just how seething with rage the public is right now.
Wanna know why
we have mass shootings? Think of those people that snap as a sort of warning sign of
the public mood. Expect to see a lot more of them, no matter who is in office.
For that matter, the election of Trump is a similar indicator. Think of Trump as
the "
Roll the dice, we've got nothing to lose!
" candidate, compared to the
establishment darling HRC.
Of course, long after Trump is gone from office, the forces that gave rise to
Trump will still be there. That said, the establishment will tar every populist for
years to come with Trump's weakness, stupidity, recklessness and incompetence. "
Remember
what happened the last time you didn't vote as instructed?
"
Already, Trump has proven the best campaign ad the European establishment could
ask for. He prevented the election of Le Pen in France, and prevented the German
establishment parties from complete meltdown. The campaign slogan goes something
like this: "
Vote for us, unless you want a buffoon like *him* in office!
"
I agree. For the first time in my life I am seriously concerned about the
future of this country. We are one serious financial or foreign policy
calamity away from serious social breakdown.
Robert: Thank you this very sober, very reasonable assessment. I hate Trump's stinking
rotten guts with the white hot fury of a thousand suns, and I disagree strongly with some
of the points you are making here, but this is a terrific piece.
He gets a "C" in foreign policy, but everything domestic is so bad that he may as well not
even call himself right wing at all. The illegal and legal immigration problems have
exacerbated under Trump (look up the numbers). Of course he has deported very few and now
advocates for increased legal immigration.That is not what anyone voted for. He
incessantly proclaims how much he has done for demographics that will never vote for him,
while even openly making fun of the struggles that working class white men (his base) face
in society. He has now come out in support of red flag laws as well because of one event
presumably. He even gave us a "criminal justice reform bill" to let out criminals to be
even more of a plague on society. Why?
"fashion a grand bargain that might have included
legal status for the so-called Dreamers (and perhaps their immediate families; not cousins
and uncles)." --> This is not acceptable. This is not reform, but merely a concession of
the inability of our country to have laws or moral legitimacy.
A solid F. Trump's weakness has failed to lead to any major policy successes, even when he
had majorities in both houses of Congress. Trump's incompetence has given the
establishment loads of ammunition and recruits that they didn't have a few years ago.
Hell, Trump has made even doofus Uncle Joe Biden look like a viable alternative. Sad!
One major problem with the author's analysis of the Trump Administration's scandals is
that it is limited entirely to the Russia scandal. Ignored are a host of acts of
corruption that have marked the Administration of the man who constantly bragged that he
would appoint "only the best people." So let's examine just a few of them. His National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn was convicted of felonies and sent to prison. His Secretary
of HHS Tom Price resigned in the wake of insider trading investigations. Interior
Secretary Ryan Zinke left the Trump administration amid mounting federal investigations
into his travel, political activity and potential conflicts of interest. EPA Administrator
Scott Pruitt was facing more than a dozen investigations into his taxpayer-funded travel,
questionable spending decisions, use of aides to conduct personal errands and other
matters when he resigned. Labor Secretary Alex Acosta resigned over his scandalous
granting of a sweetheart plea deal to Jeffrey Epstein. I could go on to the other members
of Trump's inner circle who are in prison or who have been forced to resign under a cloud
of scandal. I could point to New York State shutting down the Trump Foundation as a
fraudulent charity that scammed people out of their denotations. I could note the Trump
University scam whose victims received a $25 Million dollar payment from Trump after he
was elected. The author gives Trump a grade of C+ on scandals? An F would be more
accurate.
Healthcare: I actually don't blame Trump on this one. All he really did was trust his
party when they said they had plans and just needed the power to do them. It would've been
great if HE had a plan himself but in the end that's Congress' job more than anything. So
he gave them that power, said "DO IT!" and they failed him. He should've struck at
immigration first but as far as healthcare itself.
So I give him a B for effort.
Republicans get an F.
Immigration: "A massive Trump failure. He was the first president in decades who had
enough credibility with restrictionists to fashion a grand bargain that might have
included legal status for the so-called Dreamers (and perhaps their immediate families;
not cousins and uncles). He might have also taken serious action on other illegals in the
country, on stemming the inward flow through every means possible, and on overhauling
current immigration policies, including ending family-based migration and the lottery,
instituting a merit-based system, and curbing the inflow enough to get the percentage of
foreign-born people in America returned to more historical levels."
Remotely not possible? Legal Status for Dreamers, push for more efficient deportations,
merit based systems, and curbing the visa system?
That is VERY much possible to get all of most of that. The first is what the opposition
is wanting and most of his side wouldn't scream against. He didn't even provide it as a
bargaining chip (at best a "we'll revisit it later" delay).
Higher deportations would bring it to Obama levels. It just becomes hard to do when you
open the debate with blasting all latinos as criminals sparking off the PC bee hive.
Though that's moot since he could've, instead of a symbolic wall he could've asked for
more funding for more centers and more judges to speed up the deportation trials (since
isn't the point to actually DEPORT them, not lock them up for months under the pay of
taxpayers). he used up his capital to maintain a marketing gimmick. By the time we got
serious, he had moderates so pissed they tune the whole thing out and the left so angry
they'll contemplate decriminalizing the whole thing just to snub him.
A merit based system WOULD'VE been a decent sell before all that mess or simply done
when republicans had Congress. It also requires snubbing the "merit=europe" peanut
gallery. Now no one is even listening.
The visa issue would've been an easy sell to both sides. It brings in a mass of
non-citizens specifically to fill up job slots and then leaves them to be abused by their
employers under threat of deportation if they don't comply. I can throw that exact line up
in almost any forum and get a mob of support from the radical left to the far right.
There's insanely difficult topics about immigration. Most of your wish list was low
hanging fruit in 2015. Trump turned it into the third rail. He didn't spark debate or open
anything up. He got everyone so angry they aren't even discussing it properly anymore.
Lastly, if he wanted a wall that badly, he should've tried it in the first two years of
his election. Trying it RIGHT AFTER it became impossible reeks of wanting to LOOK like he
wanted it, sort of like if I waited until someone filled a box with cement then tried to
lift it and said "I'll try HARD to make this happen."
Pure F.
I agree with you on Economics. On Trade I'm not as "China BAD" as you but overall I'm
willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, though I'm not a farmer.
Foreign Policy, There's no really any further places to GO to spark a war other than
Iran itself. And as you said he's not doing well there. That said it's probably close to
what you said, though I'd put him a D+ as we're not in war with Iran just yet (sadly that
is an accomplishment) but I can't see any way to really fix what we ruined at this point.
At BEST they'll go the way of North Korea.
Scandal: If this is on how he's handled scandal I'd give him a B-. He know how to
handle angry people and keep them barking with no bite. It would've been a B+ but I think
the current racial ones was a big overreach especially since it's causing his party to
throw their feet into their mouths 2008 style and further souring immigration issues.
Overall: Trump's big advantage is that he touched on an area that Americans desperately
needed but everyone wanted to ignore. Republicans wanted to go back to Bush. Democrats
forgot that they won on "Change" not on "more of the same".
His disadvantage is that he doesn't have much to actually offer to fix it. He touched
on immigration but sparks the fears of racism from the left and focuses on a symbolic, but
less effective, wall. He touches on poor workers but taxes rarely affect them and the
corporate elite is still tightening their grip just as effectively. He spoke of wars but
his biggest accomplishment is that we've run out of places to invade-except Iran which
we're 1 misfire from entering.
All he has is an economy that was rising before he joined in and is slowing down 1-2
years after his main policies have taken effect. Thankfully that's the most important. Not
thankfully, presidents have the least amount of control over it.
Which means he's mostly banking on a car that was built without a steering wheel and
hoping it doesn't slam into a tree.
Meanwhile I glance at the whiplash the size of a tornado that's to my left and wonder
just how insane things get when they grab the reigns again.
Very, very good analysis. I am a former Republican that now votes Democrat since the
lunatics are running the Republican asylum. I was the only one, of all my
progressive friends, that said maybe Trump can actually get something done. He owed
the Republicans nothing. Nada. Zip. He beat them all, without the help of the
Republican machine.
Trump could have formed a center right coalition. Starting
with infrastructure that wasn't a wall. Then he could have gone after Big Pharma and
the Medical Industrial Complex.
But no..... He immediately jumped as far right as possible. He went after every
right wing wet dream he could. He was like a drunken 4 year old that was thrilled to
break every toy of his sandbox rival (Obama). Now everything that he says that might
be somewhat reasonable is drowned out and eclipsed by his insanity, narcissism, and
general idiocy.
The Republicans are going to really, really hate 2020. Can't say it happened to a
more deserving bunch of folk though. Bless their little hearts.
This is a good point; the only Republican who could have actually broken the
consensus within the Republican Party and suggested that a) healthcare should
be improved for everyone b) the rich could be taxed more, and the poor less
and c) foreign wars of aggression are a bad thing got in to office and cut
taxes massively for the rich, tried to simply repeal the only step forward in
healthcare for decades, and antagonised everyone abroad (Israel and Saudi
excepted)
"The first [Dreamers] is what the opposition is wanting and most of his side
wouldn't scream against."
I cannot echo this loudly enough. I live right in the
middle of what has become red-meat hard-right Republican land -- but you can still
find support for the Dreamers here. They're not
desperate
for those kids
(illegal spouses of immigrants currently in military service dominate that
conversation), but they're absolutely willing to keep them -- at least as legal,
lifelong residents. And particularly if their families receive no similar benefit.
If you can swing that here, from people who're beginning to lean somewhat
xenophobic and feel strongly that illegal immigration is hurting them -- then man,
you have a powerful foundation from which to build.
Immigration is a massive Trump failure? Where was the GOP when he got elected? They have
said for years if they got the House, Senate, and White House they would build the wall
and fix immigration. They did nothing. Zero.
Obama/Hillary "misadventure" in Libya? Wow....talk about putting a sugar coating on a
disaster. They put 1 million plus "refugees" into Europe and created a thriving slave
market in Libya. Way to go!
No foreign policy success? How about calling out various NATO members for being dead
beats? Especially Germany. How about getting out of that fraud "Paris Accord?". Out of the
Iran Nuke Deal? Getting NK to Singapore? Taking on the failed NAFTA "deal?" Dumping TPP?
...And the big one...defeating ISIS!!!....Something the "glory boy", Obama could not
accomplish.
Russian scandal? No, Coup attempt by members of Deep State, i.e. Justice Dept.,
Intelligence agencies and the MSM. Trump failed in not having midnight SWAT team raids on
hundreds of coup plotters.
As far as I know, President Trump is the first person elected to the Presidency with
little to no support in any national political Party or organization.
Nor any experience in any form of government at all.
The only President that comes close is General Eisenhower.
Frankly, When I voted for him
in 2016.
I did not expect him to last this long. Two years max was my guess.
As Hillary Clinton was far, far worst than any alternative.
So I am surprised he is far better that what I was lead to believe.
I will be voting for President Trump in 2020.
Because he has no support in any of the current major political parties.
But has been relatively successful despite that political situation.
As both major political parties have proven themselves not to be working in the
interests of the American People. And have longstanding histories of working against the
American Middle-Class. And exploiting their political positions for their political and
monetary gain. At the public's expense.
Its Donald Trump or the Asteroid Strike as old the joke goes.
President Trump will do if I can not get two Asteroids striking Washington DC and New York
City simultaneously.
Trump's presidency is a failure and you don't have to be a Democrat to see that. In many
ways, Trump was a man ahead of his time, but a major part of his failures is his inability
to personally invest any of his time into the issues. Take Afghanistan - he keeps saying
he wanted out from the moment he took office, yet here we are, over two years later, with
still no end in sight. The fact is, Trump's an empty vessel. I've never gotten the sense
he's a true believer and, even if he were, he's become more worried about re-election,
which means he's become just another politician.
I'd never vote for a Democrat, with the
possible exception of Andrew Yang, in 2020. But it's time to face the music - Trump's
going to lose re-election. And maybe that's a good thing, for it's not the establishment
that needs to be broken up yet, it's the American right. We need to replace the Mitch
McConnells and Lindsay Grahams with the Matt Gaetz and Josh Hawleys. The greatest thing
Trump will ever have done is kickstart this nationalist moment, but he won't be able to
sustain it. That's up to the people willing and able to do the work we expected him to do
as president.
Trump proved to be Hillary in disguses "very much a hawk." I would say reckless hawk. Stephen Cohen
characterization of Hillary is fully applicable to him now if you substitute Russia for China "Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, was
very much a hawk. When she said publicly that Vladimir Putin has no soul, you could not commit
or utter a more supreme statement of ant i-diplomacy, and particularly addressing the Russians,
who put a lot of stock in soul. "
Notable quotes:
"... Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, was very much a hawk. When she said publicly that Vladimir Putin has no soul, you could not commit or utter a more supreme statement of anti-diplomacy, and particularly addressing the Russians, who put a lot of stock in soul. ..."
PAUL JAY: Well, my question is, I think when you are saying positive things about
Trump diminishing tensions with Russia, which I think is correct, but I think you need to add
this guy does not have peaceful intentions, he's very dangerous.
STEPHEN COHEN: I live in a social realm–to the extent that I have any social
life at all anymore– where people get very angry if I say, or anybody says, anything
positive about Donald Trump. When Trump was campaigning in 2016, he said, "I think it would be
great to cooperate with Russia." All of my adult life, my advocacy in American foreign
policy–I've known presidents, the first George Bush invited me to Camp David to consult
with him before he went to the Malta Summit. I've known presidential candidates, Senators and
the rest, and I've always said the same thing. American national security runs through Moscow,
period. Nothing's changed.
In the era of weapons of mass destruction, not only nuclear, but primarily nuclear, ever
more sophisticated, the Russians now have a new generation of nuclear weapons–Putin
announced them on March 1, they were dismissed here, but they're real–that can elude any
missile defense. We spent trillions on missile defense to acquire a first strike capability
against Russia. We said it was against or Iran, but nobody believed it. Russia has now thwarted
us; they now have missile defense-evading nuclear weapons from submarines, to aircraft, to
missiles. And Putin has said, "It's time to negotiate an end to this new arms race," and he's
100 percent right. So when I heard Trump say, in 2016, we have to cooperate with Russia, I had
already become convinced–and I spell this out in my new book, War with Russia?–that
we were in a new cold war, but a new cold war more dangerous than the preceding one for reasons
I gave in the book, one of them being these new nuclear weapons.
So I began to speak positively about Trump at that moment–that would have been
probably around the summer of 2016–just on this one point, because none of the other
candidates were advocating cooperation with Russia. And as I told you before, Paul, all my life
I've been a detente guy. Detente means cooperate with Russia. I saw in Trump the one candidate
who said this is necessary, in his own funny language. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, was
very much a hawk. When she said publicly that Vladimir Putin has no soul, you could not commit
or utter a more supreme statement of anti-diplomacy, and particularly addressing the Russians,
who put a lot of stock in soul. To say somebody has no soul and then go on to equate him with
Hitler, I found that so irresponsible. I didn't vote for Trump, but I did begin to write and
broadcast that this was of vital importance that we have this discussion, that we needed a new
detente because of the new and more dangerous Cold War.
Since he's been president, I think he's been ineffective in regard to pursuing detente with
Russia for a couple of reasons. I think that the people who invented Russiagate were the
enemies of detente, and they piled on. So they've now demonized Russia, they've crippled Trump.
Anything he does diplomatically with Putin is called collusion. No matter what Mueller says,
it's collusion. This is anti-democracy, and detente is pursued through democracy. So whatever
he really wants to do–it's hard to say–he's been thwarted. I think it's also one of
the reasons why he put anti-detente people around him.
"... The real concern is the US Senate. Currently, the GOP holds a six-seat majority (if you count the two Independent senators, who caucus with Democrats, as Democrats). Thirty-four seats are up in 2020. According to this analysis , at this point, 18 of them are in play, and four of those 18 are toss-ups ..."
"... An anti-Trump landslide at the top of the ticket could wash the GOP Senate majority away. We would then have a Democratic president and Congress -- and they would be in a score-settling mood. ..."
"... a recession, which is growing more likely by the day, would be something extremely hard for Trump to overcome. The new Fox poll has Trump at 56 percent unfavorable, with only 42 percent favorable -- and this is in good economic times. ..."
"... UPDATE: Douthat speculates today on what a recession would mean for the country , starting with the presidency: ..."
"... First, the easy part: Donald Trump loses re-election . It will be ugly and flailing and desperate and -- depending on recession-era geopolitics -- potentially quite dangerous, but there is no way a president so widely disliked survives the evaporation of his boom. ..."
"... But, as Douthat points out, getting rid of Trump doesn't do much to address the factors that led to his rise in the first place. ..."
"... The real truth is that the Republicans have a problem their rich globalist donors have abandoned them for Democrats blue Dog Dems as they are called, while their base will support them if they lead. Leading means angering their mega donors. ..."
"... Normally Republican Funder Hedge fund billionaire Seth Klarman said Democrats need to regain control of Congress "for the good of the country". His money has had found its way to 56 Democrats running for House seats and 22 Democrats running for the U.S. Senate. This is millions. His reason was a tax cut he neither needed nor wanted, Huh? ..."
"... if it is business as usual they will lose the Senate and not gain the house. ..."
( PBS News Hour screenshot ) Anything could
happen between now and November 2020, but this new Fox News poll is not good news for the president. If the vote were held today,
Joe Biden would clobber him, which is no surprise. But also, a geriatric New England socialist would beat the stuffing out of Trump.
So would a preachy Harvard professor and a militantly progressive black woman from the San Francisco Bay Area:
Again, anything could happen, but you know what's probably going to happen between now and Election Day? A recession. That's hard
for any incumbent president to overcome, but this one will already be starting out in a deep hole, and I think most of us can agree
that in the event of an economic downturn, is unlikely to dazzle with his scintillating competence.
New from the AP:
The financial markets signaled the possibility
of a U.S. recession this week, sending a jolt of anxiety to investors, companies and consumers. That's on top of concerns
over Trump's plans to impose punishing tariffs on goods from China and word from the United Kingdom and Germany that their economies
are shrinking.
Though a pre-election recession here is far from certain, a downturn would be a devastating blow to the president, who has
made a strong economy his central argument for a second term. Trump advisers fear a weakened economy would hurt him with moderate
Republican and independent voters who have been willing to give him a pass on some his incendiary policies and rhetoric. And White
House economic advisers see few options for reversing course should the economy start to slip.
Trump has taken to blaming others for the recession fears, mostly the Federal Reserve, which he is pushing for further interest
rate cuts. Yet much of the uncertainty in the markets stems from his own escalation of a trade war with China, as well as weakened
economies in key countries around the world.
If the economy goes into recession, what's the compelling argument for voting Trump? I know what the argument is for social and
religious conservatives: judges. But only a minority of American voters care so strongly about judges.
The real concern is the US Senate. Currently, the GOP holds a six-seat majority (if you count the two Independent senators,
who caucus with Democrats, as Democrats). Thirty-four seats are up in 2020. According to
this analysis , at this point, 18 of them are in play,
and four of those 18 are toss-ups. Only one of those four toss-ups -- Doug Jones in Alabama -- is a Democrat. Jones will probably
lose no matter what -- Alabama went for Trump by 30 points, and Jones only won because his GOP opponent was creepy Roy Moore.
An anti-Trump landslide at the top of the ticket could wash the GOP Senate majority away. We would then have a Democratic
president and Congress -- and they would be in a score-settling mood.
One more time: anything could happen between now and Election Day 2020. But a recession, which is growing more likely by the
day, would be something extremely hard for Trump to overcome. The new Fox poll has Trump at 56 percent unfavorable, with only 42
percent favorable -- and this is in good economic times.
First, the easy part: Donald Trump loses re-election . It will be ugly and flailing and desperate and -- depending on recession-era
geopolitics -- potentially quite dangerous, but there is no way a president so widely disliked survives the evaporation of his
boom. The rules of politics have changed, but they haven't been suspended. Polarization will keep Trump from being defeated
in a landslide, but not from being beaten handily, and in a recession the Democrats can nominate any of their candidates and expect
to evict the president with ease.
Having guaranteed Trump's removal from office, in other words, the recession would also set the stage for Trumpism's eventual
return.
I see a number of pro-Trump commenters below are pointing out that the pundits didn't see Trump coming, so their forecasts of
Trump's defeat in 2020 shouldn't be taken seriously. Sure, that's true -- but Trump in 2016 was elected in a booming economy. Had
the economy not been in good shape, Trump might have been elected anyway, riding high on economic anxiety. Neither of these factors
will be present should Trump have to run for re-election in a recessionary economy. And, Trump was running against a candidate representing
the incumbent White House party. Now, he is a member of the incumbent White House party.
But, as Douthat points out, getting rid of Trump doesn't do much to address the factors that led to his rise in the first
place.
Let me point out for the hundred-eleventieth time: anything can happen between now and November 2020. Polls aren't worth much
now. But they do remind us that Trump is extremely unpopular, and will have trouble getting re-elected even if the economy is in
good shape next year. If it's not, what, exactly, will he run on?
Trump has had historically awful numbers since about a month after he was inaugurated. The Fox News poll is coming as a wake-up
call because for a long time, the liberal media were too busy hanging out in Rust Belt diners interviewing Trump voters -- the
alleged "Real Americans" -- to pay much mind to the fact that much of the actual country detests the guy. Not saying he can't
win in '20, but recessions aside, one thing he won't have going for him this time is the element of surprise: Everyone will know
that it's obviously possible for him to win, and that if your main goal is to prevent that then you simply have to vote
for the Democrat -- no staying home, no Jill Stein or Evan McMullin-type nonsense, at least not if you're in a state whose outcome
is remotely in doubt. Eight years of Obama had made too many voters complacent, and Trump has helpfully focused people's minds.
I will gladly vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is. (Unless he/she is worse than Trump, which is probably
impossible, since Genghis Khan is not available.) I would vote for the toad in my back garden if he/she gets the nomination. Everyone
reading this knows why. Some people are able to overlook the obvious, but I find that I can't.
Unhappily I am in California, so it really doesn't matter who I vote for.
Yea, I think part of the reason Trump won in 2016 was because he took everyone by surprise. Few people thought he could win (except
Nate Silver and the LA Times, I guess, and a few of the commenters here): even he didn't think he was going to win until the Michigan
results started coming in.
Another weak story board based on polls that already in question. Fox is not above the fold to skew polls to keep stories going.
The left and the media has made a pseudo state of fear of even wearing a MAGA hat in public. This pseudo state has armed low information
and low IQ Americans willing to attack Senators while they are mowing their lawn, or enabling professors swinging bike locks at
rallies against Trump supporters.
The Senate and the House will loose not on the coattails of Trump, but based on their own silence and failures, and business
as usual. Again and Again these articles throw up the importance of saving the Republican party, but before Trump the party was
over. The party knew that as they went after rigging of the polls rather than winning the votes through addressing problems.
The real truth is that the Republicans have a problem their rich globalist donors have abandoned them for Democrats blue
Dog Dems as they are called, while their base will support them if they lead. Leading means angering their mega donors. Trump
has 65 percent individual donors, far above any of the Dems, even combined. Tom Steyer is paying millions to get thousands that
are from individual donors.
Normally Republican Funder Hedge fund billionaire Seth Klarman said Democrats need to regain control of Congress "for the
good of the country". His money has had found its way to 56 Democrats running for House seats and 22 Democrats running for the
U.S. Senate. This is millions. His reason was a tax cut he neither needed nor wanted, Huh?
Uihlein gave $2.5 million to Ives in a single week this past January -- essentially bankrolling her campaign to defeat Rauner
in a Republican primary on Tuesday.
Koch Brothers also followed the same suit. I could go naming more and more that switch sides, but also tried to finance Trump
Inauguration where things were more laxed and flooded in, and tried to line up on his door step. Instead he closed the door.
Trump showed that Campaign funds don't really matter if you have heart and the desire to win, having a bad candidate to run
against doesn't hurt either, but the Dems have tons of bad candidates.
With Harvesting Vote laws California is lost, but the rest of the country is in play. If they lead and lead for the people
they will win, if it is business as usual they will lose the Senate and not gain the house.
At this point who cares? Tweets aside Trump has turned into the corporate/donor class
Republican he ran against in 2016 and in some cases even worse with his recent about face on
the second amendment which I've been predicting since he banned bump stocks. He's now bought
the lie that as long as the U.S. enjoys sustained economic growth the multiracial madhouse
that is contemporary murica won't ever derail.
Trump the candidate promised:
* A strong economy which he's partially delivered on
* A wall on our Southern border
* A drastic reduction in H1B and other work visas that allow American elites to displace
Americans from the work force
* Decreases in legal immigration
* Unwavering support for the 2nd amendment
* Law and order
Trump the president has given us:
* More moral, material and financial support to Israel than ever
* Moved the embassy to Jerusalem
* Forcing foreign nations to decriminalize homosexual sodomy
* Letting Antifa and other assorted left wing crazies run wild and attack people in the
streets while prosecuting his right of center supporters for fighting back
* Early prison release for violent black and other felons
* Potentially the largest influx of legal immigrants and illegal aliens in U.S. history
coupled with the lowest number of deportations
* No wall (yet)
* Formally condemned white nationalism and so called white supremacy but not black and brown
supremacy or left wing terrorism
* Potentially infringing upon the 2nd amendment even more than Bill Clinton and far more than
Barack Obama
At this rate Trump will probably give us the green new deal, black slave reparations, a
white privilege tax and deny "anti-semites" first and second amendment rights should he win a
second term. History has shown that the radical left makes some of its greatest political
gains under Republican presidents and Trump has done nothing to buck that trend.
America was and is looted by wealthy Americans looking for a quick buck. Globalization and
offshoring in the 19080's was all about greedy wealthy Westerners, especially Americans,
wanting to make more money. To blame the looting in others just demonstrates Buchanan's
stupidity.
@Hanrahan Notice the
continued exclusion of Representative Gabbard and her criticism of the destructive Empire --
despite focusing on Beltway politics, he hasn't typed her name since June 28. He wants the
"Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders-AOC Democrats" to go even kookier because this website's
"Mr. Paleoconservative" has become a Beltway fixture, cheerleading for Team Red in the next
Most Important Election Ever.
"the Great Arsenal of Democracy was looted by" the military-industrial complex Arsenal &
it's unending wars & nothing short of nuclear annihilation is going to change that. There
is no Democrat who is willing to bet their chance at the presidency on pulling it down. And
the American public, by and large, is put to sleep by lengthy discussions of the intricacies
of trade policy. The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden
will be the first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more
shrill in their denunciations of whites in general by the hour. There's no telling where it
all may lead but it's becoming clearer day by day that the hostility will outlast the
primaries & the general election will be a very ugly affair. There's no turning back to
the soothing center now, it will be an us-vs.-them type election & hopefully, Pat
Buchanan, still America's shrewdest pundit, will keep us fully apprised.
@Charles Pewitt
Basically I agree with Erebus's comment.
What you don't seem to get is that the China situation is of the US's own making. US Co's in
the 90's & naughtier literally salivated at getting there production into China (or
Mexico) Then -- they were happy to accept Chinese conditions, as was the US government.
So, your ridiculous, punitive tariffs are going to HURT the thousands of US companies who
happily moved production to China. Nor will US Co's move home (unless the government acts
aggressively) -- they'll move to Vietnam or where ever.
Of course such punitive tarrifs will justify the Chinese into further devaluing their
currency.
Would be interesting to see the affects on US inflation were your program followed.
Implied in your comment is the apparent fact that you do not understand this US/China
issue.(which is OK, because Trump & CO certainly don't understand the imperatives
here)
You seem to think it's about trade. Actually it about China's sovereignty. The US position is
that China NOT become a leading economy such as the US, Japan & Germany are. The US
demands China cease it's drive to lead in high tech'. The Chinese simply can not give-in. US
demands amount to China becoming a second rate power, essentially a US vassal.
How could any country, let alone China with its humiliating history of being a victim of
western imperialism, do anything else but fight?
President Donald Trump's reelection hopes hinge on two things: the state of the economy
in 2020 and the identity of the Democratic nominee.
That's the first sentence and that's where I should have stopped reading. This is the kind
of out of touch political insider horse trading irradiated bullshittery that no one should
waste their time on anymore.
Trump's is finished if he doesn't fulfil his US immigration promises from 2016. He's also
finished if he doesn't stop channelling his Jewish handlers with embarrassingly stupid
anti-white rhetoric. That's it. That's where "reelection hopes" should focus on.
Trump's most obvious failed promise is not putting the deep state under constitutional
control, after the Obama/Clinton escapades.
"Justice, FBI and ICE are turning into partisan organizations."
Wrong! The deep state is in the DNC's pocket. Barr is fixing the extent Obama attempted to
coup the 2016 election using the DNC' deep state.
BTW your Leninist DNC armed appendage aka antifa is now responsible for 4 attacks on IC
offices. The latest a gun shot through a window of an ICE office in San Antonio, Tx.
That the deep state has not closed them is deep state obeisance to the DNC.
President Donald Trump saw the same day that bombs must have been used on the WTC towers on
9/11/2001.
From his experience building steel sky scrapers, he knew they were built to be strong,
even against a jet. He stated to the reporter that bombs must also have been involved.
What I have yet to see satisfactorily explained is how a huge (or even yuuuge) skyscraper can
fall – within its footprint – when subjected to asymmetrical forces.
Put aside whether the jets had enough fuel, burned hot or long enough, etc. Taking the
footage at face value, the buildings were SLAMMED from one direction. There is no way that
could have caused symmetrical damage. Any structural component closer to impact received
orders of magnitude of force more than those on the opposite side, resulting in unequal
weakening. Yet what everyone saw was a symmetrical collapse within footprint, as though all
structural components were equally and simultaneously weakened.
Who you gonna believe, the gubmint, or your own lying eyes?
"... The establishment's "Democracy Works!" propaganda seeks to stifle such Movements, directing attention to establishment candidates voice those concerns. But those candidates invariably prove to be ineffective because they can never get enough support to win and their efforts largely end with the election. ..."
Well you don't trust any of them, but you vote for the ones pushing policy you want to see happen, and you vote for the
ones that try to make that happen, and you abandon them immediately if they renege.
Obama's election and betrayal proved that this strategy doesn't work.
Tulsi is not anti-war', she's anti- dumb wars . Just as Colin Powell was ('Powell Doctrine' LOL). Just as
Obama was ("don't do stupid stuff"). Just as Trump is (amid howls of "isolationist!" LOL).
The fact is, every candidate will salute the flag as soon as the requisite false flag outrage occurs.
Furthermore, even if you ardently support Tulsi because she voices something that appears to be anti-war, you have to contend
