Is Trump merely a figurehead?

Of course Trump is a figure head.

He’s the victory of the post modern experiment on global politics.

Then there’s the real.

He won’t keep a single promise

I assign you this task:

1] make a list of Don Trump’s campaign promises
2] four years from now we’ll all meet back here and see how he did

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here have a list of all the campaign promises that Barry Obama broke?

Starting [of course] with “change we can believe in”.

In other words, tell that to Wall Street. :wink:

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.

Where’s the fun in that, Mr. Objectivist? :wink:

Anyway, what did you think of the point I raised? Is there anything to it at all?

No, seriously. Let’s discuss the extent to which political economy is a factor in American politics. Or in the “liberal/conservative” divide.

On another thread if you’d like.

No huffing, no puffing. Just a straight out exchange of ideas.
[/quote]

I’ll take that as a “no” then.

Let’s see a few.

Making Mexico pay for a 3000 mile wall.

Repealing Obamacre (which sucks)

Charging Hillary as a traitor and hanging her

His presidency is barely a few hours old and he’s already not accomplished all that?!!

Wow, imagine then the list in four years!!!

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?

I thought everything was fine until you pointed out that the New York Times didn’t like his speech. Now I want to change my vote.

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?

What the hell is this mish mash all about?!!

Someone has been fucking with the posts on this thread. Including [I suspect] deleting one or two of mine.

Dear god no, a newspaper said something bad about Trump. The shock, the horror. Surely it must be true!

youtube.com/watch?v=Nge0NnTEnCI

Wyld,

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.

It’s not even been a week yet.

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.

I think of Trumpls more as of a fingerhead than as of a figurehead.

I don’t think a wink really justifies the difference. But sticky fingers resort to leaving no details behind, and in this case, the meaning is definitely not in that, I might as well reference a long past Rolling Stone hit by an ass ociation like that.

The numbers , albeit few, show some pattern here on general terms, the bifurcation literally exemplifies a quantified reduction of the gross global signification between both sides, VI’s. Those who go for the NWO, and those who are isolationists. It’s a microcosmic representation to sure, but someone on NPR commented that there is a view floating around of a return to 1920’s political reality.

What’s next? A crash and a deep recession/depression?

One could extend the finger head metaphors to the onset f the gold finger spy series. Everything big, grand.

Zizek may be dead, but Chomsky is alive. He says Trump is a con man. Another observer, a history -prof. , gifted and known for predictive talents, who did predict a Trump win, now sees a Trump impeachment as inavoidable.

We’re Republicans were able to blow up a lesser crime with Levinsky et all, it’s very arguable that Trump’s problems will successfully be downplayed by a government where all three branches are controlled by the same.

If all the hoopla surrounding the merits of isolationism fail, and there some Republican congressmen start to worry about mid-term elections, will the center hold? This reasoning is more compelling, the more this possible scenario is entertained.

Ideological meltdown can occur, as well as the ease at which it was built up.

Even now, there are many within the reasonable members of the Republican Party who would not want anything better then a Pence succession.

Chomsky is a walking seizure, as someone once said. The man is clearly deranged beyond all hope of redemption, certainly beyond the grasp of philosophy.