Is Trump merely a figurehead?

[Meno_]

It's not that I like them or don't. Both Your and mine sources are secondary, and have bias. But the thing is, Uccisore, my inclination and leaning is toward what was characterized earlier on, as primary identification with the philosophical argument
nderpinnings within historical contexts, which go directly to the heart of another vpcharacterization of the Republican Party, that is fearful and holding their
ground. I am trying to sustain continuity, whereas
the liberals are charged with the opposite, naturally as pragmatists the moment caught the by surprise. Here lays the inversion, and a few tidbits of actual
news is worth more than some opinionated biased
analysis.

The points made upon the reverse roles of the
parties, starting in the socially charged years, where
the predominant South, went from Republicsn to Democrat, abandoning their affiliation ,and now we are seeing another turn around, a new conversion.
These are significant changes, because they were
drastic and abrupt.

Now switch reels. Trump announced that one of the
first things he will bring into the White House Oval Ofgice is a letter from Nixon, with whom at that time Trump was in close affiliation maybe even friendship with. Nixon wrote Trump a letter, telling him, that he, Trump, one day will become president.
Now here comes an irony. Nixon, also defied convention, literally breaking into the Democratic Party Headquaters, albeit seeing himself as above the law. And at the same time, he predicted the advent of fascism to America. Ironic, because it is through his own actions that he had such an acute insight. Eisenhower made a more general cautious remark by warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. So there is a thread here, a continuum, where dots can be connected, as seemingly tenuous as they are.

Now, here comes Trump who has true to prediction did become president, and he also is trying to curb judicial power, by going around process. The unconstitutionally of some of his actions have been pointed to, and yet, has by a sort of fulfillment of destiny, managed to overcome all obstacles so far.

The parallels are more than coincidental, and more significant than what an economist, or Rasmussen has to say. Even the pundits have gibpven up on such forecast, and the trend now is toward the elements of surprise, and ad-hoc political construction.

[Uccisore]

It's not that I like them or don't. Both Your and mine sources are secondary, and have bias.

What's this 'my sources and yours' business? There's just my sources. You haven't given yours yet. Either you're making it up or your too embarassed by the bias of your sources now that you've whined about the bias of mine, right?

But the thing is, Uccisore, my inclination and leaning is toward what was characterized earlier on, as primary identification with the philosophical argument
nderpinnings within historical contexts, which go directly to the heart of another vpcharacterization of the Republican Party, that is fearful and holding their
ground. I am trying to sustain continuity, whereas

This is a bunch of word salad, it means not a thing. The basic thrust is, you declared that Trump's popularity was in a tailspin when it isn't, and used that as the starting point for some political theorizing.

Now, here comes Trump who has true to prediction did become president, and he also is trying to curb judicial power, by going around process.

He didn't go around the judicial process even the tiniest bit. You're simply making that up. He went to court, he lost, he'll abide by the decision or he'll appeal it.

The unconstitutionally of some of his actions have been pointed to,

.

Who? By the same unknown people who told you his popularity was tanking?

You come back around to the same problem again and again: You refuse to even consdier that points of view other than 'far left' even exist, and then try to interpret American politics through that lens. Yes, given that Trump is a horrible racist facist nazi, you can conclude a lot of things about where the country is going. But when somebody gives you evidence that of another point of view, and you just fucking dismiss it with four words because it comes from Rassmussen, your assessment is just a regurgitation of left wing talking points.

[quote
The parallels are more than coincidental, [/quote]

Of course it's not a coincidence, it's a narrative! 100% of everything you read or consume about Trump is full-out negative to the point of conspiratorial, and those same sources are full out negative and conspiratorial towards every other Republican who has ever lived, so of course you're going to see parallels!

[Meno_]

OK.
I see your point, but you, ok we, are missing something. The forum is set up to make a choice between two opposing, or different points of view, where we are heading. This is not really clear, since no one really knows, since the future is as impenetrable to the public, as it is to the administration. What any ones opinion is, is only an opinion, however, that does not dispense with the FACT that either one, or the other choice will prevail.
The point is, nothing is written down in stone, and this is why, the Republican Party is re-forming itself, rather than the other way. At least this is the impression so far is that the former is more likely.

There is no need to read other opinions on this, since most opinions are formed from others. The facts are different. They are succinct descriptions of understandable sequence of events, directly drawn from Trump in action.

So far, there is an air of mystery and deception on the face of what can be observed, not merely , literally on the face of Trump, but on the changing, collusively inescapable show of the lack of a clear motive or program/objective on the part of this Republican administration. That it is always compared to aTrump's book, the art of the deal, can't miss that the self interested economic reality has not only invaded politics, but captured it.

The age of international corporation power has come home to roost, but not really the home most people would like to live in. Well, some people. They do not realize that billionaires are a minute part of the corporate structure, and just because one billionaire loathes another, means pretty nearly nothing.

Just to give a glance: The biggest three economic powerhouses in the world today are:

1: The US Military-Industrial complex $1/2 trillion per year
2: Walmart's just under$ 1/2 trillion per year
The next dozen or more shall be not listed, but will enter the Chinese military cost at almost $120 billion
a year. Why do we need to look at this?

The few billions in zTrump's portfolio are just a few pittance compared to the actual quantified economic forces out there. In a country where the size of your pocket book is nearly as much desired as the size of your phallic symbols, the hyperbolic exaggeration in a hard sell phantasy, for Trump openly admitted of using a phantasy to energise the fools who buy in.

These are dynamic phantasies, where the substantiality of the center, reduced by over inflated fantasies of desired standards of living conflating with the actual increasing rate of change of inflation it's self-can only be qualified by fantasy and nostalgia.

Now here we are quibbling with where we got information and whether they are prejudiced by our own views, appears as naive ways to construct an ideology based on other then the way things appear, and their further obfuscation by variously tied in and chanelledvre-interpretations.

The purpose of this forum is modest: It tries to reveal direction with what there is, not to point to this or that legitimized intent or project, as far as the administration possessing some kind of blueprint or stratagem. If we could seek a rational which would not sound hollow, then we could gain some relevance into making some kind of Rasmussen type guesstimate toward it.

Using those type of outlets we immerse ourself into an unending discourse, circular and repetitive, but unlike arriving at a historically precedential beginnings. We merely arrive at a place of mystery and empty rhetoric for its own sake.

But this is why the ideological vacuum is being , or in the earliest stages, beginning to be re-built, albeit, with little success at this juncture, at overcoming the sophistry on a level in accordance with so called 'democratic principles.'

[Uccisore]

OK.
I see your point, but you, ok we, are missing something. The forum is set up to make a choice between two opposing, or different points of view, where we are heading.

Shouldn't some discussion come before the choice? When I presented that Trump's approval ratings weren't actually tanking, you just dismissed it due to the source and went on as if it was never said. It seems to me you've already made your choices.

and this is why, the Republican Party is re-forming itself, rather than the other way.

The Republican Party isn't reforming itself half as much as the Democratic party is. But that's to be expected- when you continuously lose, you need to reform, especially in a two-party system.

There is no need to read other opinions on this, since most opinions are formed from others.

You say there's no need to read other opinions, but then you immediately say this:

So far, there is an air of mystery and deception on the face of what can be observed, not merely , literally on the face of Trump, but on the changing, collusively inescapable show of the lack of a clear motive or program/objective on the part of this Republican administration.

Don't you think if you actually read what Trump and Republicans say about their motives and agendas, it all might seem a bit less mysterious to you? I can assure you that Trump has been very clear about what he intends to do and how he intends to do it, and he has done nothing since he has been President that has surprised his supporters.

It seems clear what's happening: You utterly refuse to expose yourself to conservatives/Republicans explaining themselves, and in the absence of that information, you're making up theories and stories.

[Meno_]

If I contested your comments, on basis of sources, which you would think I gathered from liberal sources, then you would be wrong because I looked at both sources, but came to the conclusion, that I would have to discount both from their biased view.

However, one thing remains irrefutable, in any case, that there is a lot of change, some assertions fueling that change is in itself undocumented and refutable.

How can my view be anywhere be conclusive, thereipon such inconclusive evidence ON BaoTH SIDES?

I am merely an observer, in search for a trend, a future for this country, and based such unfounded evidence, am forced to go to historical precedence.

And since what they say, that there is nothing new under the sun, irrespective of what they might lead you to believe, there is, a point to making an assertion verifying the concept of eternal recurrence. Therefore, I do declare, that some very newly sounding and earth shaking rhetoric has been listened to and acted upon innumerable times. Therefore, the ideas surrounding sophistry and propaganda have been mulled over many many times over the eons of hystiry, but clever oratorios hide historical precedent as it were unique and unprecedented in our time.

Therefore I conclude that your inability to discuss choices, based on substantial precedent is due to shifting and indecisive holding as to their relevance in our time. You have been captured by cleverness, but not by wisdom.

[Meno_]

Do not get me wrong, Uccisore, I believe in Your intelligent way of regarding the situation as it is, or presents itself, but here, that the only sublimest slice of rhetoric can sound meaningful and on target, and let's face it, Lets Make a Deal is accordant to only the

very thin formal rhetoric of what is left out, is on purpose,since there is not much underneath.


But let's wait and see how history in retrospect will judge our future.

[Uccisore]

What is with this habit of spouting incoherent gibberish when you don't have a substantial point to make? Wouldn't silence be preferable? I can understand not wanting to think about or address the things I've said, but I don't understand making it so obvious. Why say a bunch of shit that we both know doesn't actually mean anything, when you could have just posted a link to your source on Trump's popularity numbers?

[Meno_]

What is with this habit of spouting incoherent gibberish when you don't have a substantial point to make? Wouldn't silence be preferable? I can understand not wanting to think about or address the things I've said, but I don't
understand making it so obvious. Why say a bunch of shit that we both know doesn't actually mean anything, when you could have just posted a link to
your source on Trump's popularity numbers?

Check on any poll on his sinking popularity then you wouldn't call it a bunch of ...., anyway your response
just proves my point, that bias can simply not be
fought except on its own terms, of which i am, familiar, but reluctant. Again, let's see a while longer which option will win out, without saying which one I
voted for, for both choices are conceivable without
taking the obvious sides which we have been taking. Well not really, the one you have taken, and the corner that you supposed I was forced into by your
punches. What would you think if I told you, both
options are equally possible, and looking at the scant 50/50% split , by intelligent ILP memebers who voted, it may seem fairly representative of an even
split.

[Uccisore]

Check on any poll on his sinking popularity then you wouldn't call it a bunch of ...

I did, and you told me that poll doesn't count, remember?

[Meno_]

It doesent, but, I am just countering the assertion that polls show that his popularity is rising. Whether the poll is an adequate presentation is another matter.

So, One could say, yeah, you said it's rising, but hey, another says that it is sinking. See, now what is the truth?

The assertion can be made either way, and the point is, a You introduced the poll as evidence, so I was justified in using other polls to show another story, not necessarily that I believed in them.

The fact is, that if polls can not present the true state of affairs adequetly, at least hey may have a not so well as nderstood function of changing opinions. But that too goes either way.

[Mr Reasonable]

Ucc has a lot of trouble understanding the difference between data and propaganda. Like he thinks that if he posts, "proof" of something from infowars, that you have to post something from another fake news site or else he's giving you data and you're not backing up your claims.

You can really tell that he doesn't understand much of philosophy.

[Uccisore]

Rassmussen is propaganda now?

Is you saying I post things from infowars propaganda, data, or something else?

[Meno_]

Ucc has a lot of trouble understanding the difference between data and propaganda. Like he thinks that if he posts, "proof" of something from infowars, that you have to post something from another fake news site or else he's
giving you data and you're not backing up your claims.


You can really tell that he doesn't understand much of philosophy.

Well it does go both ways, Reasonable, and I would be presumptuous to admit that I know the difference.
But really what else is new? As long as infowars is limited to some mild post election mud slinging, who cares? At any rate one cannot ascribe gross differences to changes in venue, they should coincide within acceptable deviation. So therefore, yes, there is propaganda value for a respectful census to proclaim a difference above a medium deviation which if were to go waaaaay over that, it would signal bias. Yes?

It's easy to cook books, at any rate, that's factored in normally. But if it sticks out way beyond and it has that proven value, to sway opinion, then why not?

Wouldn't call it propaganda, though, perhaps a hard sell hyperbola would suit better.

But if you stick out, well, then you cast a big shadow, and the differences will not remain simply hyperbolic, they will be exposed a lot sooner, and the sun will not be kind when it happens.

Even if people admire such charisma and hutchpa, a grounding needs, otherwise, well the harder they fall.

[Uccisore]

It doesent, but, I am just countering the assertion that polls show that his popularity is rising.
Whether the poll is an adequate presentation is another matter.

So, One could say, yeah, you said it's rising, but hey, another says that it is sinking. See, now what is the truth?

Well, in all likelihood the truth is somewhere in the middle- I wouldn't be surrpised if his popularity is going down a little bit over the past few days. His news hasn't been that great lately. But it's certainly not plummeting enough to speculate wildly about and come up with some theory to explain it.

The assertion can be made either way, and the point is, a You introduced the poll as evidence, so I was justified in using other polls to show another story,

But you DIDN'T use another poll. You just declared my poll didn't count, and then re-asserted your opinion based on nothing as far as I know. I still have no idea what your source is that Trump's popularity is tanking, or if you just made it up.

The fact is, that if polls can not present the true state of affairs adequetly, at least hey may have a not so well as nderstood function of changing opinions. But that too goes either way.

But you're not the 'it could go either way' guy. You're the 'every single thing I say on these forums is about how horrible Trump is' guy, remember? You create a thread attacking him, usually based on false information, on a weekly or daily basis. So what's this 'who knows what's really going on' stuff coming from? You obviously carry on as if you do.

[James S Saint]

The disallowed question:

"But who told you that?"

[Xunzian]

Good dude. Anyway, Bernie was supposed to be "red meat" for "the base" like Kucinich and Sharpton. They aren't actually going to win but they do a lot to motivate core constituencies that vote. it's an easy strategy for a coronation primary.

Depends on who you're putting the intentionality on the 'supposed to' there. Maybe he was supposed to be that for the people in his camp that actually wanted him to win, but for the DNC, he was supposed to generation donations from millennials and others that would be either supporting the Green party or else completely disaffected- and that's what happened. He was never intended to win or even do well. That the DNC transparently shafted him, then put the person most responsible for that shafting in charge of the HRC campaign right in front of everybody certainly didn't help.

Republicans are straight up evil dude. Opposing them makes sense. It is 100% warrented. Always has been. That he is a standard Republican isn't shocking. That just means we have to oppose him more.

That's the kind of attitude that will continue the DNC's transition to being a regional party.

LOL DNC.

I mean, I agree that the Neolib shit will have the dems out of power for forever because neoliberalism is a death cult.

From the Neolib perspective Trump is fucking DELIVERING. Yeah, we agree it's a bad fucking idea. So what?

You are still carrying Trump.

[Meno_]

It doesent, but, I am just countering the assertion that polls show that his popularity is rising.
Whether the poll is an adequate presentation is another matter.




So, One could say, yeah, you said it's rising, but hey, another says that it is sinking. See, now what is the truth?

Well, in all likelihood the truth is somewhere in the middle- I wouldn't be surrpised if his popularity is going down a little bit over the past few days. His news hasn't been that great lately. But it's certainly not plummeting enough to speculate wildly about and come up with some theory to explain it.

The assertion can be made either way, and the point is, a You introduced the poll as evidence, so I was justified in using other polls to show another story,

But you DIDN'T use another poll. You just declared my poll didn't count, and then re-asserted your opinion based on nothing as far as I know. I still have no idea what your source is that Trump's popularity is tanking, or if you just made it up.

The fact is, that if polls can not present the true state of affairs adequetly, at least hey may have a not so well as nderstood function of changing opinions. But that too goes either way.

But you're not the 'it could go either way' guy. You're the 'every single thing I say on these forums is about how horrible Trump is' guy, remember? You create a thread attacking him, usually based on false information, on a weekly or daily basis. So what's this 'who knows what's really going on' stuff coming from? You obviously carry on as if you do.

But don't you see polls don't matter but impressions do? But he carries himself masking both his intentions,goals and the underlying platform to stand on. And that is exactly the description of choice #1.

You obviously take number 2 and that is the opposing position.
The posing,the mask is an opposition to the second choice by definition.

[Meno_]

It's appears significant that both polls, this and the previous one come up with a 50-50 split. Not that the numbers are quantitavely definitive, but given the qualitative superiority of the the opinion of members of ILP, the identical poll numbers show the very even spilt so far.

So how does the fact of Trump becoming dangerous have on Trump being a puppet or an ideologue have bearing on one another?

I propose, that if, Trump is shown to be a deceptive sort of politician, with having groundless claims and defenses, than for sure, he is a cover for desperadoes of the worst kind, who think they can steamroll almost anyone into their way of thinking. Then the possibility that Trump really has a plan, a new ideology, becomes a mute issue, arguable certainly, but fading in relevance as we speak. If that is the case, then Trump will be pushed into a position of irrevocable mediocrity, and will serve out his first term as a very weak president.

If Comey will come out saying that he can't comment on an ongoing investigation, the shadow of doubt will retreat to a general suspicion, that he is only following the Republican Party line bias, whereby leaving the controversy unresolved.

But more likely then not, that approach will be preferable to either a total validation or denial, which would put Comey into the most unenviable position ever, placing him and his family close to danger, both literally and figuratively, where the figure of a politically bankrupt man would paint an awful picture for someone in the law enforcement area of public life.

[Meno_]

The more the even split goes on between choices one and two, ,the more its beginning to look like an even polarization ,ideal for the inevitable reconstruction of affairs of state. This to be expected in times of legitimization of the need to collude prior represented interpretations, into a newly appearing construct.

The signs are there the de-mirroring of abstracted forms of political and factually built up ideals.

This is why a substratum will need much more flash then the Petersburg bombing was able to create. It's not such easy a diversion.

That it is becoming necessary has begun shaping the slowly evolving picture of how.

If China doesn't 'reign in' North Korea, then diplomacy will fail.

Ideology will dictate by certain and necessary logic a preemptive involvement into North Korea, to rid the world the very antithesis of the remaining trace of dialectical materialism, and the rebirth of the logical ascension of the world of the spirit in Capitalism.

That it is necessary at this point to give it an absolute vindication, to him , who for certain knows this, may give pause to those disclaimers who still have doubts.

[Meno_]

Therefore I double down on the choice #1.

[Meno_]

Therefore, in light of what has happened over the last 12 hours, I double down on my doubling down
There was collusion on basis of ideology, and Syria was only a precursor.

The delicate balance has been overturned, the clowning only set the stage.

The ultimate validation of the ideological turn around will be another deceptive move, on part of the Russians, and or the Chinese. This is not over, by a long shot.