On Inauguration Day 2017—A Reevaluation of Terms
by Brad Benson
limo allegedly set on fire by anti-Trump protesters on Inauguration Day in DC
On the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States it would seem to be appropriate to reevaluate the meaning of long-used political terms which, subsequent to the advent of President Donald J. Trump, have now lost all meaning.
Terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" were already obsolete by the time of the 2016 Election Campaign. For that matter, we have had Neo-Liberal Interventionists and Neo-Cons for at least 16 years and there is no qualitative difference between the two—at least insofar as our Regime Change Wars are concerned.
The term "Progressive" is also dangerously misused. It is derived from the route-word "progress" and no logical definition of this term includes war. Further, because aggressive war abroad reaps the collateral damage of moral decay and social collapse at home, there can be no expectation of real progress at home so long as our foreign wars of aggression continue.
And what would real "progress" at home mean? Should it really be defined by how many people have been elevated from the poverty level or how many jobs are created per month? No one believes any of these official Government Statistics anymore and even the most gullible believer in our brand of "democracy" knows that these reports are always designed to enhance the prestige of some pompous official or bloated Federal Agency.
In a healthy, war-less economy, true "progress" would be obvious, as it was in the very short period following the aftermath of WWII. In real terms it would mean a new baby boom across all ethnic groups and social strata—one which no one could deny. Our kids would be given an education that would measure up to the highest standards in the world instead of the lowest.
Outdoor sports and healthy behavior would be encouraged through an efficient public school system, while farm-grown food would AGAIN be a regular feature on well-stocked family tables. There would be a feeling of raised expectations, as there was with the advent of a young Kennedy Family, however flawed they may actually have been, when considered under the light of 50 years of hindsight.
In the age of Obama and Queen Wannabee Clinton I, there have been a whole lot of people who love to call themselves "Progressives", but yet willfully averted their eyes from the increase in secret domestic spying; torture; drone murders; extrajudicial assassinations of US Citizens; Regime Changes; arm sales to Israel; and the 30 year, $1 Trillion nuclear arms build-up.
Don't avert your eyes now. Here are the details you missed, even as Obama is now being idealized and lionized "for the ages".
Then there are the so-called "progressives" in the Democratic Party who supported Hillary Clinton—a War Criminal and Mass Murderer who blind-sided her feckless boss when she overthrew the democratically elected government of the Ukraine and who stood down when the legitimately elected government of the Honduras was violently overthrown.
Finally, there are those high-minded "progressives", corporate leftists and Hollywood Losers who ardently supported the WAR MACHINE over the allegedly evil, racist Trump in the most recent election. These people are the true fools of our times, deceiving themselves into believing that their vote for Hillary was a vote to save us all from "Fascism".
The fact is that we are already living under a 21st Century Iteration of Fascism, which has been called "inverted Fascism", because it reverses the concept of the messianic "strong man" with that of Deep State Control, as supplemented by a Presidential Front-man, who can be replaced on a regular basis or taken out as needed.
So get off your high horses and realize that, notwithstanding anything Trump said during his campaign, much of which was intentionally misreported, the FACT is that his opponent was and remains a sociopath and a killer. Therefore, no one who supported Hillary Clinton, or otherwise voted for her as some sort of perverse lesser-of-two-evils choice, can call themselves a "Progressive".
As for the ideologue "lefties" who stayed away and the purists who believe that voting is a waste of time, good for you. I have been tempted to do the same thing on several occasions in the past. However, in this case, the situation had come too far and Trump offers the only real chance that the people may yet have to rescue this country from the Deep State Thugs that offer nothing but more war, domestic spying, militarized police and the ultimate collapse of the Empire.
Meanwhile Trump offered to end our stupid wars and bring about rapprochement with the Russians. Therefore, in an election that ultimately may have determined the survival of humanity, Trump was by far and away the best choice, if only based upon his promises to defuse the New Cold War.
So it's time for all you liberals, neo-liberals, faux progressives and garden variety lefties to quit crying about the election defeat and count your blessings that the WAR CRIMINAL did not win. Get to work rebuilding a viable organization that really supports social causes and works to end our wars. Perhaps then, you will have an argument.
Meanwhile, I am a true, anti-war Progressive and I am proud to have voted against a WAR CRIMINAL and for a man who promises to deliver peace. He may not deliver on any single promise, but he remains a better gamble than to vote for someone who was promising WW III.
Therefore, I will support him until he commits his first War Crime and so should you. He's our last chance to save what's left of this dying Empire and he will need all of our help. His inaugural speech today elaborated on this clarion call against the establishment. Unfortunately, few on the "left" appear to have been listening.
see also The Beatification of Barack Obama
Filed under: empire watch, featured, United States
Tagged with: Barack Obama, Brad Benson, Donald trump, liberal left, neoliberalism
Excellent article. Just to add a couple of points that go beyond political labels. I am amused at the bafflement of the political class at two characteristics of Trump's short time in office.
The first is Trump's statement that he is President to represent the interests of his electorate. Not people who might be future immigrants. Not corporates who have exported jobs to where it is even more profitable and easy to exploit their workers or where the environmental standards are lower or where unions are banned. No, Trump insists that he should represent the people who put him in office, even if they are 'deplorable' white people.
The second is that Trump appears to think it important to keep promises made during the campaign. The entire political class holds up its hands at the naivety of man! Doesn't he know that politicians aren't expected to keep their word?
"However, in this case, the situation had come too far and Trump offers the only real chance that the people may yet have to rescue this country from the Deep State Thugs that offer nothing but more war, domestic spying, militarized police and the ultimate collapse of the Empire."
Garbage. Trump offers a very real chance of a rapid descent into full blown fascism- and already in just a week or two he has enacted a wave of racist, anti-environemnet, anti-transparency, pro-corporate changes to US policy. He has a bunch on neo-cons on his team- and more than a few 9/11 war criminals.
Yes Clinton was a corrupt war pig of the worst kind- but no- that does not mean trump is the good guy. Trump is the scum of the Earth- and a very real danger to humanity.
louisproyect
For all these people here claiming that the NY Times, The Guardian and the Washington Post are smearing Donald Trump as a defender of torture, you might want to look at this article that was published by Glenn Greenwald. You know Greenwald, right? The number one supporter of Edward Snowden and a guy who has written a blistering attack on Russophobia and the dangers of a new Cold War.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/27/the-president-of-the-united-states-explicitly-endorses-torture-a-crime-against-humanity/
deschutesmaple
Well, if you like the idea of abortion being illegal in the USA, then Trump's your man. I happen to be pro-choice, and think abortion should be the decision of the woman, not the state. Indeed, Clinton's pro-war stance and legacy is shameful, but she would not have overturned Roe vs. Wade as Trump has clearly, repeatedly promised to do by appointing pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. I think Trump vs. Clinton is not as black and white an issue as this author thinks. MANY bad things will be coming with Trump: a giant wall between Mexico and USA, the gutting of the EPA with climate deniers, Muslims and Hispanics being demonized, Trump's pro-torture statements, and privatized 'charter school' education. I could go on and on. If you think all of these positions are good–then your head is way up your ass and there is no hope for you.
Seamus Padraig
Reply to deschutesmaple
Relax. We've had a Repulican-majority court for over a decade now, and Roe vs. Wade is still there.
Reply to Seamus Padraig
Relax? With Trump in the White House? LOL! Why don't you go and tell the millions of women who marched all across the country to "relax" about Trump promising to put pro-life judges on the bench to specifically overturn Roe. vs. Wade. You go do that, and let me know who it goes, 'kay? You go ahead and relax buddy. I think we're in for some very, very bad times up ahead with Trump in orfice.
Brad Benson
So abortion rights are more important than war and murder?
Reply to Brad Benson
Trump is a massive liar- on the one hand he has said he doesn't want to 'get involved in foreign wars'- and on the other hand he has stated that he will 'wipe out Islamic terrorism' in a few months. You cannot do both. Already he is making plans for war. Watch this space.
Hitler also promised peace- as he prepared for war. Hitler also demonized minorities- and used scapegoats and hate on his rise to power. Hitler was also a total narcissist. Indeed there are a lot of similarities between Trump and Adolf- and it is no wonder the KKK and alt-right nazis like this scumbag love Donald J Trump:
and this is what needs to happen to Nazi's:
Reply to jacques
Lying is hardly exclusive to Trump. Obama came in on a 'dove' ticket and destroyed Syria and Libya on lies.
Hillary Clinton laughed like a maniac as she said "We came, we saw, he died". What do you think of her?
You think that Trump is the only narcissist in politics? Look at the mess the US has created around the globe and how many millions of lives have been destroyed.
A child is removed from a hospital bed and has his head slowly sliced off on the back of a pick up by people the US have been supporting and barely anything gets said. The BBC go to lengths to try and label the victim as 'a fighter' to excuse it. How low can you go? These are the people who claim to be the voice of morality and point fingers at Trump? Come on.
Reply to Sav
obviously- Trump isn't the first politician to lie. No-one said that- or if they did that are idiots.
And just because Trump opponents are known liars, war-mongers and corporate shills- does not mean that Trump is a good guy. Too many people seem to fall for this binary world- where there is a good side and a bad side. There is good side! Because the US funds ISIS- does that make Putin a good guy? No: he is a murderous bastard!
Because Hillary was sold out to wall Street and her corporate overlords- and a warmonger for the Military Industrial Complex: does that make Trump the good guy? NO- he is a shit-heel, a filthy lying scumbag who does not even seem to have even the most rudimentary sense of humor.
He is quite possibly going to prove way worse that Hillary- we just can't tell how bad he is- but all indications are he is bat-shit crazy. As a non US resident I find the idea of that orange faced buffoon having that 'nuclear football' in his small-handed clutches beyond just scary! It's lunacy!
By his own words Trump talked like fascist- and now by his deeds he is a fascist. No matter how evil you think Hillary was/is Trump must be judged by his own words and deeds. I have done that: and I find him to be a repulsive lying bigoted, sexist, racist narcissist scumbag of the highest order- with fascistic tendencies- and a very real threat to world peace.
In general terms I agree with most of what the author says but I have huge problems with the way that he articulates what I think should should be a more sobering article.
Let´s be clear: Trump is not a peace candidate or the panacea that will get rid of corporate control or neoliberal policies. Trump´s first war crime, a couple of drone strikes, occurred just a couple of days ago, and while his attitude towards Russia is commendable, he has also been posturing against China and Iran. Not to mention his unconditional support for Israel´s war against Palestine. Readers will remember Obama´s restart of relations with Russia and how that went.
He also, among other beautiful things, restarted the pipeline project, initiated a campaign of economic coercion against Mexico, signed the bill to build a wall and "restrictions" for muslims entering the US. No one can complain about his inactivity or his lack of commitment towards his campaign proposals.
So, while I am also disgusted with the hypocrites that after 8 years of wars and neoliberalism suddenly seem to realise that blowing people into pieces or building border walls is not cool, I am also getting tired of the many pieces by "progressives" that increasingly sound like exaltations of D. Trump.
I felt a bit relieved with his election, given the alternative and what was at play (time will tell…), but to say that one "supports him" is more than revolting.
michaelk
Trump's an unusual President in that he's not a professional politician at all. He's never been elected to anything or held a public office. I can't think of anyone in US history like him and certainly not a president. This alone makes him a very interesting figure to put it mildly. Does that mean anythiing, or is it just a detail?
I don't really think that Trump is a fascist and his supporters aren't raving Nazis.
His rhetoric is one thing, Obama said and promised an awful lot too, it's really his actions that matter. At the moment he's signing a lot of orders ans saying stuff that, looked at objectively, don't actually mean very much in practice, though they have symbolic value, and the media love them because they appear so different and dramatic, when, looked at calmly and closely, they really aren't. He's saying stuff that his core base like and the liberal/left hate, which is the result he likes, but how much of it is real?
For example, why did the 'experts' in the security services tell Trump when he asked that torture worked? That's what Trump said. I asked them about this stuff and they told me it works. That's his version. Is it true? Most intelligence professionals don't agree that torture works. So it's confusing. Whilst it sounds scary and ghastly, is the United States really gonna start torturing people when the results are so poor? Under Obama torture was 'outsourced' to various dreadful regimes who did the dirty work for us, but were the results worht the bother? In essence, given the above, torture has mostly a signal value rather than a true military value as most terror organizations have a structure that is designed to mitigate against the consequences of one or more of their members spewing a lot of information under torture. Torture is highly over-rated and is a sign of weakness.
Is Trump really gonna start a conflict with China over a few tiny islands in the South China Seas? This too is highly debatable. Swap a Chinese sandbank for New York or Los Angeles? I don't think so. And reportedly the Chinese have moved ICBMs to the Russian border, which have the combined power because they tipped with MIRVs to wipe out all the major US cities in the event of a war. Somehow I don't think Trump is gonna want to get into a war with China that effectively ends US civilization.
I think it's important for the left, or whatever the oppositon is called these days, not to get caught up in hysteria about Trump.
Reply to michaelk
You faith in Trump's rational behavior is worrying. Trump is an irrational shit-head. He cannot take criticism, he cannot accept other peoples points of view- he is a petty, narcissistic little man. For all we know he would be happy to have a nuclear war with China- just to prove a point- or deflect attention away from his small hands. And if he cannot create the economic miracle he has promised- it seems very likely he will do what so many others have done to 'change the subject': start a war.
In the end Hitler would have pressed the button- if he had had it- and then committed suicide to avoid the blame. As it was Hitler's last letter to the German people blamed them for everything- and told them to fight to the end (when fighting was suicide and hopeless) and to leave Germany in ruins.
Looks like we have another troll not interested in debate but in posting dubious video propaganda equating DJT with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany before two weeks have even passed.
What are these trolls going to do once the Trump = Hitler narrative wears thin and no-one listens to them any more?
As Michael K says, Trump's actions matter more than his rhetoric. At present they are being misinterpreted (deliberately) by the corporate news media and trolls such as Louis Proyect and Jacques. Unfortunately for most people (including us Off-Guardian readers and commenters) Trump is not like other previous US Presidents who came to power from a legal background or a past career in Federal or State politics and who might have been shaped by a particular political culture. His style of leadership and decision-making is unfamiliar to most of us. If he is gathering people of a particular political or ideological bent around him, how do we know this information is being conveyed to us truthfully by the corporate news media? We know Trump has sounded out Tulsi Gabbard (a Democrat politician) in the recent past as a possible cabinet appointee and this might be one indication that he is less narrow in his viewpoint than the corporate news media (and some of the "alternative news media") give him credit for.
Trump appears to have no definite political ideology that can be tied down to a set of principles or values that would make logical sense on paper, much less in action. We do not know if he has had to make compromises on his way to the Presidency or if he is currently hamstrung by legislation left over from the Obama administration now coming into effect.
For the time being (let's say three months until mid-April) we are in no position to say that Trump is a fascist or not a fascist. Slandering him does us no favours and makes Off-Guardian look as ridiculous as the corporate news media itself. The trolling may have a more sinister effect in that the more the Trump = Hitler meme is used, the more unwanted connections Off-Guardian gains on Google search, and the more likely Off-Guardian comes to be associated (falsely) with anti-Semitism and thus shut down.
Reply to Jen
His actions thus far, which include a harsh ban on refugees and even green card holders, along with the gutting of the EPA for Big Oil, his promise to be "pro-Life", his appointing of the far-Right Breitbart head to the National Security Council, his extreme neo-liberal Education Secretary, his promise to drastically increase military funding thus sending MIC company stocks through the roof, and his planned financial deregulations, are all enough for us to judge him as the neo-liberal fascist that he is.
So what, he said a couple of nice things about Russia and Syria and that alone is enough to entice you? How sad.
Calling people in the comment section "trolls" is juvenile and indicates you have put so much faith in this man that you have lost all sense of respect for others with opposing viewpoints. I believe this behaviour should be punished by the mods. But that is a decision for them to make.
Reply to Matt
Before Trump how would you define US foreign policy? Altruistic?
Restrictions based on nationality are nothing new. They are done worldwide. They were already in place before Trump. Even Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from entering the US. That's not to say Trump is a great guy but it's pretty obvious how Trump's actions are howled as fascism and the end of the world and when done under Obama or whoever else are sugar coated and readily swallowed.
The last thing I want here is moderation like The Guardian.
What Trump has done is far beyond what Carter and Obama did. Carter enforced a block on all future visas issued to Iranian citizens, while Trump banned entry to the U.S. from the 7 countries, suspended the Syrian refugee plan, and banned entry to the US for dual-nationality passport holders. Green-card holders were banned too, but the WhiteHouse quickly walked back from that stupidity a few hours ago.
Also, normalizing Trump's actions by comparing them to the past actually delegitimizes the argument that he's any different than the previous guys.
Where did I say he was different? I'm asking you how your previous luvvies were any less fascist? That's all US foreign policy has been. Destroying and plundering. But if they stick a 'right on' veneer over it – that's okay?
Due to your juvenile ad hominem attack – "your previous luvvies" – I won't bother dignifying you with an answer. I answered you respectfully.
It seems people have become more and more unmannered due to the internet.
People can read Trump's memo here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/25/us/politics/document-Trump-draft-executive-order-on-detention-and.html
It states that the use of black sites should be reviewed. I suppose that this would pass muster with all of you here since your heroes Gaddafi and Assad partnered with the CIA in abducting men and sending them off to Libya, Syria and other places where they would be locked up and tortured.
Reply to louisproyect
Your usual trolling. Pity you can never actually debate. You write your dross then fuck off quickly.
No, Assad and Gaddafi are not my heroes. I just believe in truth and not sucking up bullshit in destroying another country on lies under the fraud of humanitarian concern. That the people of those nations have first say before some narcissistic arseholes and idealists who pretend to give a shit about them sat thousands of miles away.
Give up the pretence that you give a shit about anyone but yourself. Do you even have time to post here. Aren't you busy with the fundraising for your biography, you narcissistic prick.
https://louisproyect.org/2016/12/19/help-fund-my-biography/
"… Aren't you busy with the fundraising for your auto-hagiography …?"
Er, hope you don't mind the adjustment.
I don't mind. Had to google it though. 🙂
"Pity you can never actually debate."
Well, when you are in such an overwrought state (narcissistic prick, etc.), there is really not much point, is there? Plus, I really have a thing about having exchanges with people using tags like "Sav" or "Jen". It is like taking the trouble to write a response to someone who wrote something hateful on the walls of a bathroom stall. It is not worth my time.
I've always been civil to you on here with the exception of this post. You post and run. Never debate. Never answer points. Just throw more mud. I take nothing back of what I've said.
The posting names here are irrelevant to the arguments being made. Just a red herring. But then you're a prize bullshitter so that's no surprise when you try and use that reason.
But why would you bother replying anyway when it's the people in influential positions in mainstream media that you want to court and gain recognition from. I'm just some pleb. The great Louis Proyect. His story must be told.
Doug Colwell
Louis, I went to your site and asked you if you thought the people of Libya preferred their lives now that the dictator Gadaffi has been removed by "our" benevolent regime. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Late to the party, I see.
https://www.sott.net/article/340701-More-Fake-News-WaPo-makes-up-story-about-Trump-reinstating-CIA-black-sites
SOTT.net? One of the most authoritative websites on the Internet for those with a taste for the grotesque.
https://louisproyect.org/2016/12/28/the-cassiopaea-experiment-the-grotesque-cult-in-assads-corner/
I thought you had a bugbear about having exchanges with people who post the equivalent of graffiti on bathroom walls, yet you post a link to your own rubbish (as if you're making some claim to being an authoritative source on SOTT.net) to my comment. Why do you visit Off-Guardian if you claim it's not worth your time replying to people like me and Sav? We're entitled to use whatever usernames we like.
Well, at least sott.net made WaPo's 'PropOrNot' list, so that's a bit of a recommendation. 😉
Nothing from that article proves Louis wrong. It's not fake news. WaPo correctly reported that it was a DRAFT document of an executive order. What's fake about that? Nothing. Sputnik (the original publisher of the reposted article) claimed it was fake news without proving it. WaPo correctly discussed a draft EO order and this was obviously under consideration. The Press Secretary merely said they can't discuss draft documents that are floating around. Perfectly reasonable, of course, but hardly evidence that WaPo's article was "fake."
What's telling is him walking back on his earlier walk-back from torture. He was first pro-torture, then after he won, said he agrees about Mattis saying torture doesn't work, and now he believes in torture again.
The Washington Post article says that the executive order authorising the CIA to reopen so-called "black sites" was APPARENTLY drafted by the White House.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-draft-order-calls-for-review-on-use-of-cia-black-sites-overseas/2017/01/25/e4318970-e310-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.fe5474b0943b
"… An executive order apparently drafted by the Trump administration calls for a policy review that could authorize the CIA to reopen "black site" prisons overseas and potentially restart an interrogation program that was dismantled in 2009 after using methods widely condemned as torture …"
In other words, WaPo seems not to have made an effort to make sure if this EO draft really did come from the White House or not.
Later in the same article you will see:
"… The document was provided to The Post by a person who said it had been circulated among agencies in Washington for comment. The immediate feedback, this person said, helped convince the White House counsel that the document needed wider distribution and review before being finalized. It was unclear which agencies received the document, but those with the most direct stake would include the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State and Justice departments …"
Which person was this? Possibly the person who made up this draft EO? Did WaPo check to see which agencies in Washington had received this draft EO? If not, why not?
Further on:
"… The draft order copy obtained by The Post contains editing marks and significant errors, including a reference to "the atrocities of September 11, 2011," missing the actual date of the 2001 attacks by a decade …"
At this point, WaPo's story starts to smell more than just fishy. Is this draft order that is with WaPo a genuine draft order or is it some hoax document? The five or six reporters who collaborated on this story cannot come up with any proof that it was actually drafted by someone in Trump's government. For some reason they do not know or cannot find out who in Washington has seen this draft order. They appear not to have asked the CIA, the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom or any other agency with an interest in this draft order. They don't question whether they are being taken for a ride by a hoax document.
Your argument rests on the fact that there are spelling and other errors in a draft document, hardly a strong argument. It can not be said that the document is a hoax document merely because of these errors.
Also, it would be impossible for WaPo to provide evidence as that would involve revealing their sources. What possible evidence could they supply, whilst keeping their source anonymous?
The onus is on WaPo to demonstrate that the draft executive order really did come from the White House and that various government agencies really have seen it. The reporters do not have to name their sources but there are other ways to demonstrate the other claims they make in their report. They can consult people in the CIA and other agencies with an interest in the document to find out if they are familiar with it and if the document cam from the White House through the usual communication channels.
BigB
"Members of Congress denounced the draft order, which was first reported by the New York Times on Wednesday."
From the Wapo article you posted – WaPo states clearly it was NOT the primary recipient, NYT obtained the document first. In their article, it merely says the document was "obtained by" NYT, but goes no further. The draft EO also appeared on Wikileaks Twitter feed, I don't know which came first (which is why I got a bit confused in my comments below.)
We are being played, the ability for something to be determined as definitively 'true' or 'false' is being deliberately obfuscated and undermined – this could be a fake, a psyop, a smear, an underhand way to judge public opinion, or possibly even a 'genuine' draft EO – WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
And please, don't be so naive (check with the CIA?) that was exactly the counter logic applied to Gary Webb – that he didn't check his facts with the CIA. ("Hello, is that the CIA, do you import drugs?" "Yes, of course, I'll send you over all the relevant files right away sir.")
I'm sorry @Jen, but nobody is going to give you the definitive truth on this – TPTB want you in the dark whilst they ("history's actors") move on unnoticed (or so they hope.)
Thelma Follett
I agree with much of what was said in this article; and, for much the same reasons, I very heavily supported Bernie Sanders and then, when that did not work out, I voted for Jill Stein as I would NEVER vote for Clinton for all of the reasons stated above; however, Trump is quickly now manifesting and overtly taking anti-democratic, saber rattling (if not yet war mongering) actions that Obama and Clintons and Bushes and Reagan (initiator) put into place for him over all of these long years. Merely the puppet masters of the global corporate agenda at work, jerking the strings of the liberals, liberal progressives, populists, libertarians, tea parties, blue collars…whatever….
I will wait and see. If anyone saw his speech at the CIA it certainly wasn't positive with talk of 'wiping off the face of the earth' references. Strangely the media made very little noise about that compared to how he or his wife looked at the inauguration.
I understand it as a type of corporate fascism which of course includes and is driven by banks/ers.
It appears to be an emerging neo feudal system based on debt and 'rent' collected by the corporatocracy funneled to the top (asset holders) and paid by the majority. The push to cashless societies is a grave danger I believe in this system. Rules are being pushed as the basis rather than rights and laws, If you don't follow the 'rules' your funds could docked or stopped altogether, fundamental rights could have to be earned or maintained by full compliance. We could be stripped of our inalienable (natural) rights by the back door.
It has long been said that he who controls the money controls the people. It's very easy to control people in a society where all finance and 'money' is electronic.
I remain skeptical Trump will change this in any meaningful way but perhaps slow or ameliorate the effects for a while for US citizens. I wait with great interest for his approach to the Fed, IMF,World bank etc. The whole banking system is corrupt and out of control of 'the people' and serves only vested interests. Until this is addressed I see little but continued chaos in the world and continued opposition to him from the so called progressives.
I cannot see these so called progressives or centrists seeing what many of them support and the hypocrisy clearly, they are too busy opposing Trump and their image of him. Trump is called a racist but Obama and Clinton killed, brutalized and repressed millions of brown skinned foreign people in their own countries and did nothing for those forced to flee but blame them as Trump is already doing. The image is everything no matter how big an illusion the image is when you look at deeds.
My faint hopes for less risk of a major war under Trump are already dissolving. Hopefully US citizens will see improvements under Trump but if wars are still on the agenda it is going to continue to cost them and keep them in debt for generations. It is a wait and see situation but it's time we all got together working for decent lives for us all not tilting at the myriad of shadowy windmills presented to us and used to divide us.
I see a dark future I'm afraid and think a major collapse is inevitable before we can get real change..
Sorry, Not Buying it
"I am proud to have voted against a WAR CRIMINAL and for a man who promises to deliver peace."
Have you been asleep for the past few months? Trump is moving to reopen CIA black sites, has lambasted the Iran deal (which was already replete with imperialist pressure directed at Iran) as "the worst deal in America's history", and is a strong supporter of Israel (the Zionist hoodlums have announced the establishment of over 500 new settlements in anticipation of his support). His Secretary of Defense is already making noises about destabilizing Cuba and Venezuela (the latter because of a personal grudge). He's also continuing Bush and Obama's drone program. What you're saying is essentially, "Here Mr Trump, now it's your turn to commit war crimes."
"He may not deliver on any single promise, but he remains a better gamble than to vote for someone who was promising WW III."
Trump is already committed to inter-imperialist confrontation. His stance on Russia is arguably a means to allow the US to concentrate on wrestling with China.
"Therefore, I will support him until he commits his first War Crime and so should you. He's our last chance to save what's left of this dying Empire and he will need all of our help."
Wait: he needs "our help" to save save the Empire? You see the Empire as something worthy of saving? I'm not giving him an ounce of my support.
"His inaugural speech today elaborated on this clarion call against the establishment. Unfortunately, few on the "left" appear to have been listening."
Which is just as well, given that the Empire should collapse and die, and all workers should do whatever they can to expedite this process. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Trump isn't going to wrest control from the deep state or the "establishment", of which he's every bit as much a part of as Clinton; he'll EXPAND the deep state with more war, aggression, spying and a general culture of fear, xenophobia and racism. People who want to wallow in delusions are free to do so.
Reply to Sorry, Not Buying it
"… Trump is moving to reopen CIA black sites …"
Where did you find this news? If you saw this news in The Washington Post or The New York Times, I think you've fallen for Fake News Incorporated … hope this will be the first and last time …
https://sputniknews.com/us/201701251050009454-washington-post-cia-fake-news/
From now on, we Off-Guardian readers really have to take care with what we see and hear about what the Trump administration does, where the news comes from and how credible it is. It seems that the corporate news media establishment is now hell-bent on trashing DJT to the extent that it is prepared to broadcast or publish any garbage about him and his government, regardless of its origins or whether it makes any sense at all.
I hope comments forums here at Off-Guardian don't mindlessly repeat such idiocy as it has the potential to derail and prevent proper discussion of DJT's policies and programs. There is a reason that the corporate media is running with stupidities about Trump's government and why Trump might tolerate them: for one thing, such rubbish keeps the corporate media occupied with trivialities, away from what Trump is really doing that merits attention.
Whilst I broadly agree with what you say @Jen – that extra vigilance is required – I don't think that it is going to be that cut and dry to ascertain the facts in the future. For instance, both the truth and the falsehood of the black sites reopening statement are predicated on the 'fact' that the sites were ever closed (relocated maybe) – which I personally can't believe – especially not on Obama's say so. Or the CIA's.
After all, George H W Bush ended Operation Mockingbird "with immediate effect" in '76 – or did it just go covert?
As for the NYT's draft ExO on Black Sites, or todays draft ExO on immigration – who's to say they aren't 'real' (Spicer, Sputnik?) It has long been an enemy tactic to make a speech or leak a document – then gauge the reaction. According to Michio Kaku, Eisenhower even mooted the idea of ending the Korean war with nuclear weapons (OPLAN 852) in the court of public opinion (sanity prevailed.)
Maybe the NYT typed the ExOs up, or maybe an 'insider' leaked them – if the reaction is negative enough – it is easy enough for them to be plausibly denied by Spicer, Conway or the Donald (who has a fleeting arrangement with the truth himself) – who would be any the wiser?
(The real news, like the reopening of #DAPL, by contrast has a media blackout.)
Better to start from the premise that they both lie.
Neither side has any credibility at all.
We are entering uncharted and dangerous waters, were neither the corporate M$M with their undeniably #FakeNews agenda, nor the Trump regime with the Conway/Spicer alternative fact analysis can be trusted. They are both increasingly in a parallel universe devoid of truth. So it will not be the first or last time someone gets their 'facts' mixed. Toss a coin – pick a 'fact' – my bet is that both will be disinformation.
I'd love to think that we could be completely factual and reality based (and we should try) – but in these post-truth times – if you want to get to the truth, you'll have to play the game. Keep an open mind, read between the lines, and make an informed best guess.
Whilst that is not really satisfactory to me, given the paucity of raw information, and the corporate agenda that wants me to believe that war is peace – I feel it is the best I can hope for.
Reply to BigB
Whoops, undermined myself a bit – I thought that the NYT was the source of the 'Black Sites' draft ExO when it was Wikileaks – which gives credibility to its authenticity but not its source. Other than deny it, Spicer didn't really want to discuss it, so it may yet have come from the 'inside.' I'll keep faith with Wikileaks 100% record, but other than that I'll stand by my general premise – Trump, his regime, the M$M, the CIA, etc – you can't trust any of them.
Thanks Jen, I indeed should have been more carefully.
Nevertheless, we can gauge the likely trajectory of what Trump has in mind by the noise he has made about "getting tough", that torture "works", and that the US needs to "do a hell of a lot worse than water-boarding". He's promoting it and glorifying it, and if it proves difficult for him to go back on too many of his promises, he may opt to pursue the further institutionalization of torture in the "war on terror". He says that he would seek "legal advice" from the Attorney General and his CIA appointee, but that he personally is for water-boarding. Whether or not he achieves this, he certainly wouldn't bat an eyelid if given the chance, especially if it might placate deep state elements who are reticent about him. This is a man already showing cruel disregard for "his" citizens in the form of a deafening non-response to tornado victims. He wants to scrap the EPA and has placed a gag-order on its employees. Contaminated drinking water? If someone's state environmental protection agency does a poor job of regulation and enforcement, then workers are shit out of luck in that state; it becomes "their problem".
You cannot judge Donald Trump by whatever the MSM or the "experts" it consults say about him or his policies and programs. As I said earlier, the MSM is out to take him down. Whether what it says is based on truth or rumour or outright lie will not matter as long as people have been primed (with previous propaganda) to swallow it.
Everything you have said so far about Trump will do appears to be based on hearsay and rumour. Are you able to show that Trump is promoting and glorifying water-boarding? Are you sure Trump has not responded to the plight of recent tornado victims? If you can only cite MSM sources for this, and cannot cite any other sources outside the MSM, then you are as guilty of rumour-mongering as they are.
We can only judge Trump on actual facts that he leaves on the ground. The same would be done if Hillary Clinton had become President. In her case though, we already know her track record as a former US Secretary of State and from the John Podesta emails leaked to Wikileaks., and can use that to predict what she would do had she become President. We cannot judge Trump on what he says; we should know that politicians say one thing and do another – why would Trump be any different, especially if he wants to gauge people's reactions and use those to guide his decision-making?
"You cannot judge Donald Trump by whatever the MSM or the "experts" it consults say about him or his policies and programs."
I know, but this is why I judge him by his own words, as issued during interviews, debates or campaign rallies that I've watched and where I could see him speak the actual words. And what I'm seeing is a qualitative shift in the normalization of themes of violence (including active incitement), xenophobia and misogyny. His shameless use of lying – as when he says one thing and immediately contradicts himself a few days later, with absolutely no remorse – is clearly designed to instill a sense that lying is perfectly okay and that he bares no responsibility to the truth or to anyone beyond himself. This is catered to the gutter authoritarian impulses of much of the electorate, an impulse shared among Clinton supporters (especially when it comes to foreign policy) but not to the same overtly fascist extent. Trump represents that sort of lying but pushed to a new level wherein it becomes entirely casual, carefree and routine.
I also judge Trump based on his gutter reactionary, racist and woman-hating cabinet of billionaires and assorted right-wing human detritus. Trump has already signed off on DAPL and Keystone XL, he has catered to populist "doubt" (ignorance) over the science of climate change and is trying to pull out of the Paris Agreement, he celebrated Castro's death, has whipped up a law-and-order frenzy over "illegal" immigrants, is moving to trash the EPA, has called for the execution of young men exonerated of a crime they didn't commit, and has reaped lavish praise on the police (who are "treated absolutely unfairly") and military. These are all the same sorts of chauvinist bones tossed by populist fascists throughout the decades to their audiences in order to appeal to the lowest common denominators: crude anti-intellectualism, national chauvinism and racial nativism ("we're being treated unfairly by everyone else", with Mexico, Iran, China and Syrian refugees being the culprits), anti-communism, and equivocation of "patriotism" with militarism (Trump himself stated during a debate that "I'm the most militaristic candidate in this room", and he didn't mean it ironically. If someone glorifies the US military, it shouldn't cause you to mistake him for a progressive).
I don't think we should give this bourgeois enforcer and American Hitler the benefit of the doubt by "waiting to see what he actually does", because judging from what he's ALREADY done – in accelerating the trend towards the worst, most atavistic impulses of the population through his use of language, and the policies he's already signed off on (repealing aid to organizations that provide abortion advice being one of them) – should be more than enough to not want to see more of it. What are you guys going to tell the American masses when Trump inevitably catches up and surpasses Clinton's body count? Why is working class inaction and quiescence in order to facilitate more imperialist mass murder abroad and fascist intimidation at home something that you're willing to take a chance on? Are you REALLY that keen to see what "he can deliver"? Haven't we learned ANY historical lessons about the promises offered in this bourgeois pigsty? Stop believing in this "anti-establishment" charade and start paying attention to all the signs that Trump is an atavistic gutter version of Thatcher on steroids. If people can't realize this, we might as well just give up on popular struggles and say, "Maybe THIS version of fascism will be what we need."
Trump will never exceed Clinton's Body Count. You can take it to the bank.
Feb 7, 2017 4:10 AM
How on Earth do you know that?
"Are you able to show that Trump is promoting and glorifying water-boarding?" Yes.
In that interview, Trump says he asked various "experts" as to whether torture (including waterboarding) works in whatever context (not mentioned in the video) it is used. He was told it does. If they had told him otherwise, he would have gone along with their advice.
The question and Trump's responses are in the context of how Trump would deal with ISIS and other terrorists who engage in torture and extreme violence such as decapitating living human beings. Would Trump necessarily advocate waterboarding in the same way that previous US administrations have done? The video clip is not clear because the underlying context has been excised.
I respect your right to want to give Trump a chance, but when I look at the vid. I see a man skilled in the art of deception, being evasive, duplicitous and cowardly – hiding behind "experts" (who did he ask, John "if he ain't dead, he ain't been tortured" Yoo?)
He hides behind Mattis (and Pompeo) because he knows he is against torture – but it is clear where his heart is.
Let's not fall for the tired old "ISIS headchoppers" construction – where did the diehards among them learn their trade If not in the madrasses of Afghanistan (and elsewhere) from 'textbooks' printed by the University of Nebraska? Any POTUS at any time can cut ISIS off at the knees by stopping their funding – instead of continuing the pretence and bombing a sovereign nation in the furtherance of the Big Lie of the War on Terror. No need for torture.
Fuehrer Trump can speak for himself:
I labor under no illusions in regard to the Deep State. I grew up in and around DC, since my father was a high ranking military officer who did four "tours" at the Pentagon, before he finally had a Smedley Butler moment. I was also a Federal Manager and whistleblower, who faced eight years of retaliation before my case was settled at the Federal District Court Level.
With that as introduction, I would agree that much of what you say may be true in regard to Trump. He may very well be trying to mend fences with Russia in an attempt to complete the long-planned "pivot to China" that Obama tried to implement and botched.
On the other hand, in addition to the positive things noted in my discussion above, he openly challenged the thugs at the CIA and continues to criticize Brennan and Clapper. That's a good thing and he isn't doing it for show. (He was also careful to mend fences with the rank and file at Langley, some of whom may be essential to alert him to potential future assassination attempts).
Here's why I continue to view Trump as an outsider.
The Deep State had chosen two candidates for us. Their first choice was Jeb, the son of a CIA-Man and one of the last living Kennedy Conspirators. Their fallback position was Clinton, who couldn't fill up a high school gymnasium, but who had cleverly oiled the wheels of the DNC to ensure her nomination by the War and Plunder Wing of the Democratic Party. (One could argue that we have a one party system with two right wings!)
Then, following Jeb's shocking early loss and Trump's emergence as the Republican Candidate, the Deep State was confident that they could ram Clinton down our collective throats. Meanwhile, Clinton thought she had been given the nod and smugly adopted the self-assurance of an heir apparent.
Then the whole server thing got out of hand and crashed out of control—with investigations into the Clinton Foundation, pay for pay, and Podesta's Emails becoming a major sideshow in the media. However, that's all it was—a sideshow.
Instead it should be clear to all but the most naive believers in the American Official Story, that it wasn't just those pesky Ruskies that hacked Hillary's Server. Rather, it is much more likely that every foreign intelligence service in the world hacked into that server, friend and foe alike. (If they didn't, they don't deserve to hang out the shingle).
This means that the entire world had access to Queen Wannabee Clinton I's Plans for future conquests. The information rumored to have been hacked came in the form of Specials Access Programs (SAP's), which are essentially the family jewels and some of which were not even supposed to be in her possession. Most assuredly, the hacked materials were also heavily laced with information in regard to Israeli Expansion and Annexation Plans—to be implemented as soon as Queen Wannabee donned the ceremonial armband.
I would also go so far as to theorize that there may have been an "intervention" by the world to stop a very dangerous Hillary Rodham Clinton from becoming Queen. There was nothing formal of course, but calls were made, heavy hints were dropped between operatives on all sides, and perhaps even a few subtle greeting cards were left on computer screens at Langley and Laurel. As I see it, it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe that the world's first cyber war may have occurred, just beyond our sight—and that the Empire lost!
This left the Deep State with a serious problem, since they could not let the word get out to the whole world in regard to how badly THEY had failed in regard to the losses through Hillary's Server. Moreover, since the world now had the Empire's Implementation Plans for Conquest and Full Spectrum Dominance, a whole new set of geopolitical goals would have to be developed.
The Deep State was then left with Trump who, up to that time, had not been a favorite of Israel–especially when Clinton had been promising to "take the relationship with Israel to new levels", while Trump had hinted at neutrality. Therefore, a deal had to be cut.
Trump had to back off on the "neutrality toward Israel" concept and agree not to go after Clinton, since that would risk exposure of the real cyber losses. Then, roughly one month prior to the election, Trump finally met with Casino Magnate and Israel-Firster, Sheldon Adelson, one of the true Masters of the Universe.
Adelson openly gave him a big check and behind the scenes he pumped another $100 M into a pro-Trump Super Pac. Thereafter, the change was very visible, both in Trump's stride and in the number of Pro-Trump Ads that showed up on TV's in every major swing state. To me, it appeared that he had been tipped off that he would win. (Meanwhile, the Clinton's both began to show signs that they knew that they were being thrown under the bus, frequently appearing tired and uninspired—seemingly just going through the motions.)
Still, with all of that being said, as a "Baby Boomer", I had to assume that all of my conspiracy theories were just that—the senile musings of one who would still like to believe in the mythological America of my youth in which TV Ad Jingles sang, "Baseball…Hot Dogs…Apple Pie and Chevrolet"! Also, my OCD was forcing me to play the great democracy game just one more time.
The outcome of that fateful decision is now known, since I wrote about it above, and yes, 'tis true, I did grit my teeth and mail in my ballot for Trump in the General Election. (Somehow I felt better about my vote for the Orange-man too–having truly deluded myself in the primaries and foolishly given my money, my time and my vote to Senator "Sheepdog" Sanders!)
So, with that as background, let me address your remaining concerns.
As noted, Clinton was an established WAR CRIMINAL who already came with the blood of roughly 2 Million People on her hands, while Trump has killed no one to-date, so far as we know. Therefore, as noted, I will support him until such time as he commits his first WAR CRIME. (This does not mean that, I would consider him responsible for a drone murder that happens this week).
Finally as a Grandpa, whose children and grandchildren will be living through the now inevitable collapse of the Empire, some in the US and some in Europe, I want that collapse to be as painless for the world in general as possible. This is why I see Trump's turn inward as a good thing and there are others that are predicting that we might just be ready for a period of growth. This would allow the Empire to go down easily without the turmoil of total collapse.
Empires traditionally go out with a bang. Trump is smart enough to know that this would spoil the party for everyone, including his own kids and grand-kids. He'll approach the world with characteristic bravado, but he's been told that we are on the decline militarily and can see for himself how badly our infrastructure compares to that of the rest of the world.
If Trump can't turn the National Security State on its head or at least maintain some control, then there is no chance for peace in the future. In the meantime, all of us better hope that bitter Deep State Thugs don't decide to take "Executive Action". Rest assured that the "mechanics" are taking target practice; the "lone nut" patsies have been selected; and the parade routes are being planned.
It's a very dangerous time, with Neo-Con Plant Mike Pence waiting in the wings. Trump needs to watch his back.
"I labor under no illusions in regard to the Deep State."
I would prefer not to harbor any illusions about any of the forces of the bourgeois dictatorship, Trump included. You mentioned that there "is no chance for peace in the future" if Trump "can't turn the National Security State on its head". Why would you box the American masses into this hyper-restricted space of possibilities wherein they're forced to rely on billionaire real estate/reality TV show host, for God's sake? If Trump is our "only hope", then you're simply telling the working class: "drop dead". You also implied that we should have Trump's back. If the masses do have his back, he'll simply stab them in theirs.
Well then, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you think that the people can take out the Deep State, you are mistaken. It is too late for that. Moreover, it is unlikely to be tried, since "the people" aren't together.
Nor do you have any reason to make the claim that Trump represents "bourgeois dictatorship". He's an outsider, rich or not.
On the other hand, as a Progressive, I hope that the working people unite and move forward for progress. Trump won't get in the way of that any more than Obama did and may actually help the working class. He will need them.
This is absolutely laughable. Trump's cabinet is composed of reactionary billionaires dedicated to privatization, anti-worker attacks and racist dog-whistling, and you think I have "no reason" to claim that he represents bourgeois dictatorship. I think you've been unduly seduced by the rhetoric alluding to "outsider" and "anti-establishment". It's true that a large segment of US capital/the state apparatus does view him as an outsider and would prefer that Clinton have been the warlord in chief; form the point of view of maintaining the capitalist dictatorship, he's not an outsider whatsoever. He's an outsider in terms of his mannerisms, temperament and the way in which he'll enforce the bourgeois dictatorship, in the rhetoric and style of speech he uses to herd workers, his ostensible hatred for "politicians" (this billionaire celebrity is pretending to be an "everyman"), and in his willingness to say outrageous things where other bourgeois candidates keep their reactionary stances more hidden from view and are more enamored towards co-opting diversity and identity politics (except when it comes to white male identity politics, which is Trump's forte). Yes, he's an "outsider"; he's just the WRONG TYPE of outsider.
Again, utterly ridiculous and delusional. Trump will NEVER acquiesce to anything that moves beyond capitalist norms; if the workers show signs towards doing so, he'll simply intensify the dog-whistles and step up efforts to divide workers against one another (as he's BEEN DOING). By "moving forward for progress", you really just mean "gaining some employment benefits within the capitalist framework". Capitalist domination of the state will continue; capitalist control of the everyday lives of workers will continue; capitalist destruction of the environment will continue; the capitalist drive to expand or stagnate will continue, something which is beyond the ability of any president to do away with unless they somehow do away with capitalism. But workers ultimately can't make directional progress towards emancipation if the people at the helm of the state are dedicated fear mongers, racists, misogynists, slavish fans of the police and military, and, perhaps most importantly, CAPITALISTS themselves. Trump represents the culmination of the Thatcherite dream of turning everything into private property; now the state apparatus is openly up for sale. The people around Trump in NO WAY represent a "more progressive" wing of American capital than did those around Obama.
Really, how delusional can you get? At some point these excuses will have to stop. It's nauseating having to keep explaining to people that Trump is just another means for ensuring capitalist control OVER the workers and is just another dead-end for them, but it's necessary to explain it because so many people are utterly infected with illusions about the nature of bourgeois "democracy".
You make a lot of bold assertions and conclusions. I stand by my positions and think you should back off from the insults.
I'd like to see an actual rebuttal of anything I said. Without a class analysis of the situation, you won't be able to, however. And since you're apparently averse to such analyses, you're effectively trapped within the capitalist paradigm. Trump will carry out imperialist mass murder and wholesale attacks on the American working class, and because of your refusal to engage in questions of class interest (you instead reduce things to "the establishment vs Trump"), your critique will vacillate and will end up only making excuses for the system that produced Trump. This isn't due to a psychological shortcoming of yours; it's simply the organic outcome of being committing to a truncated analysis for which the necessity of anti-capitalist class struggle is more terrifying than the horrors to be unleashed by this brutal system. By "giving Trump a chance", you're effectively saying, "Take this cyanide, workers. It MIGHT taste good."
Jun 14, 2017 2:08 AM
Hi Brad, are you now willing, with the benefit of some hindsight over the past few months, to offer something akin to an admission that you were monstrously wrong? Or do you still want the US and international working class to co-tow to the meager gruel of billionaire "outsiders" providing fake "alternatives"?
Well Brad, I think you just about nailed that – that is pretty much how I saw the campaign and election play out – only you wrote it much more eloquently than I could.
I think the SAPs are key (as I commented on the Trump open discussion forum) – and they can't indict HRC without admitting that the entire National Security programme is compromised.
An aspect you don't touch on, but I find alarming (for its future ramifications) was the voter manipulation via technology. Cambridge Analytica ran a real-time file of some 4-5,000 datapoints – identifying the personality traits of 230 million potential voters – to indentify and target the 'left behind' voters.
I can't be certain as to how influential this 'behavioral microtargetting' was, coming in at a late stage (July, August?) – but it was a factor – and the implications are clear for the future. That is one of the reasons TPTB want your Big Data – to help you decide on the 'right' candidate.
In totally agreeing with your analysis, I then have to flip-flop to Sorry, Not Buying It's point of view – why are we even giving this man a chance? Despite the real relief that we are not already involved in a global conflict with Russia – for me, Trump still represents an existential threat to humanity over the longer term. He is not a friend of 'the people,' and he represents the Corporatocracy and Empire just as surely as HRC did.
I'm currently working on two (not necessarily mutually exclusive) thesis. One is the Trump was co-opted by a 'New Guard' of TPTB to represent a (slightly reconfigured) Corporate agenda. Key to this is the (Kissinger/ Brzezinski) plan to break up the Russia/China/Iran alliance – using Crimea/Novorussia/Iran/Syria/Taiwan and the Philipines as the developing pawns on the 'Grand Chessboard.' (A plan that is doomed to fail, IMHO.)
The second is that Trump has been 'selected' as an unwitting patsy himself; to captain the 'Titanic' to its inevitable fate (as a recent documentary showed, the engine room was on fire and the hull weakened from when the ship set sail.) The 'coming collapse' could be all the 'shock therapy' the 'Old Guard' of TPTB (the Globalists) need to 'return' to implement their neoliberal/neocon para-Fascist agenda.
Of minor consequence would be that in the meantime, Trump may be seen to be doing some benefit for the people – you know, just enough to stave off real civil unrest (as opposed to the Soros funded crisis actor displays of the last week.)
I can't comprehend why Americans (not meaning to single you out , Brad) put themselves through this 4-8 year 100 day cycle of false-dawn and faux-hope? TPTB hedge their bets, game the result and cover all eventualities – however it breaks – the Empire always strikes back.
I had posted a rather lengthy response to your comment but for some reason, I'm get a message that it is awaiting moderation–probably because it was longer than the article, but not because of anything in the response. I am curious if you are able to see it since, if you can't, I may try repost it as two shorter messages.
Sorry Brad, no idea why your comment was thrown into the pending queue. The software just glitches out like that from time to time
Frank Russell
What a pleasure to view a rational conversation.
JGarbo
Reply to Frank Russell
Then could you explain "route-word"?
aletho
Why not achieve single payer medical care by demanding it of Trump rather than rejecting his presidency and calling him names?
"Trump was by far and away the best choice, if only based upon his promises to defuse the New Cold War."
Unhappily, I agree with you. Unhappily because I'm female and the man is a pig.
physicsandmathsrevision
Seems to me you are a rare woman (same for a man), in that you realise there are more important things in the world than how you feel about something or someone. Thank you for demonstrating that some see beyond Trumps obnoxious egotism and loose locker-room lewdness.
It doesn't matter who's on the podium reading the script, Trump or Hillary. Those behind the POTUS make the decisions. Wait for Trump's final actions.
Reply to JGarbo
That has always been the case before. However, Trump represents a threat to this established system. He truly needs to drain the swamp of the embedded politicals that were given Civil Service Status by outgoing administrations. He's doing it at the CIA, which is a good start.
As for his programs, they are no different than Obama's in many cases, except he doesn't implement them with a nice smile.