Of course a tactical play is often brilliant only to the extent that those who vote for you are not sophisticated enough to see through it. Remember, for example, Barack Obama’s “change we can believe in”?
And now in “draining the swamp” we have a new rendition of it.
So, will he? Or, in the end, will the folks behind the curtain – the Bilderbergers and their ilk – more or less sustain “business as usual”?
Crony capitalism at home and the military industrial complex abroad.
You utterly failed to address the subject of the thread or the post you quoted. That doesn’t mean we are now suddenly talking about the topic you accidentally raised.
Already He is causing international tension, particularly with EU/Angela. Her re-election is at stake after all, and the lead editorial of the Vanguard, & N.Y. Times branded his ‘dark’ inaugural speech as philosophical and ideological. This may support choice #1?
It is not this particular comment which shows his character, it’s the some total of ideological manipulation per se. His speeches have been typified as dark, the latest dishonoring of killed CIA operatives is another attempt to discredit intelligence
in favor of a buildup of central authority, namely himself, Trump. This is why choice #1 is tipping the scales of ideological shift toward an extreme center,
but not in a way which can move toward better
transparency.
I guess, all those frustrated white guys mistake a
phenomenal philosophical manipulation for changing
the psychological leverage they assume can be brought into alignment.
This is no logically validated ontological - ontic shift based on a ‘real’ relationship, but a quasi simulation-reality show attempt, almost as if, the view that Reaganism can be upped by a very large extent, into the hyperreal stratosphere of pre manufactured expectations-actually moving the international politico.
If he succeeds, there may be no need to validate ex-post-facto, for no one will raise an eyebrow. But, and this is a big butt, it doesent work in accordance to expectations, then there will be dues to pay. And that’s a gross understatement.
My feeling is that over the years of his administration, providing he survives, there will be a substantial dilution , unnoticeable and subtly deceptive.
“Dark” is a buzzword that is associated with Trump over and over. In all likelihood, it was literally emailed to the DNC friendly press by John Podesta himself, and suggested they use it to refer to him as much as possible. And here you are taking it at face value and treating it like some reasoned consensus among experts.
Are you aware that he just gave a speech to the CIA, his first public address since being inaugurated, and he spent the entire time telling them how wonderful and important they are, and how he’s going to support them and depend upon them?
I am here in the Philippines and read the Manila Times opinion/editorial relating to the topic of Trumpism, and Duterte resembling him in many ways. This was the middle column, and there are some here who claim that marshal law is coming to contain an impending chaos.
The left side pointed to Trump’s perceived weaknesses, how China will deal with the possibility that Trump will impose sharply elevated tariffs and a trade war will ensue, among other things. Intellectual property theft, currency manipulation is also brought up but merely as sidelines to the main problem caused by huge deficits accumulating as a result of abrogating manufacturing in subcontractual economies and the tariffs imposed. They laugh it off, with the suggestion that all China has to do I see to impose an internal tax of say 25%, making exported products competitive, thereby equalizing any appear entirely inequality.
So the two superpowers will use balances to weigh other issues, such as the island issue within the Asian peninsula, where China is claiming territoriality of them in international waters. Human rights also can become a weight added to the mix to establish equilibrium and some kind of rapport.
On the right, the problem deals with internal affairs in the island nation, dealing with the question of how the new president will re-position himself between Chinese and U.S. Interests. Will he continue his slide toward China, adding to the impact of the power move by China in Asia, or the other way, Toward the U.S., using this position to deter China, to his increasingly perceived repressive politics.
These are unknowns, and added to this mix, is the Catholic Pontiff’s observation and warning to and of Trump, for building bridges in favor of open societies,and against building walls.
Which will prevail internationally, isolationism or, involvement?
I bring these comments tangentially, only to examplify how the media reflects internationally, with some inherent local bias to be sure, but the variance of information casts light generally on a overall world view, not of course with any definitive way.
We may or may not share any of this, but it may have bearing on how to vote on this topic .
Trump has already withdrawn the US from the TPP, put a hiring freeze in place for some federal employees, ordered a freeze on regulations pending review, taken steps toward getting rid of the monstrosity known as Obamacare, talked with foreign leaders, defended himself against fake news claims about his inauguration, restarted a ban on federally funding for abortion services, and brought back thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment back to the US.
Ok. But let’s summarize the meaning of these moves and their apprehension:
There is a strain of thought which draws to the conclusion that the world is shifting modes operation,
And bifurcation into tow realms; one China, pushing the globalist agenda, and two. The US the isolationist ones.
Sure he is bringing back jobs, but at what cost?
To manufacture overly expensive products, inflated by prices with factored in raised wages, needs some
structural entity to pay for the increase to prevent
competitive collapse. Who will pay for it? That is a good question, and it is possible all this hype about it , and it’s limited inception, is merely a show of redemptive effort to mute those who see it merely as a kind of proof of sincerity.
That it will cost, no matter, a billionaires’ club will certainly afford to fund to diffuse critical areas of economic distress here and there. But will he do it or afford it large scale? That is the 64 thousand dollar question.