Is Trump merely a figurehead?

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Trump has already withdrawn the US from the TPP, put a hiring freeze in place for some federal employees, ordered a freeze on regulations pending review, taken steps toward getting rid of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.

How so, can you show how this goes down? But regardless even apart from this,and the very few votes , the 50-50 split may present the way this issue could validate the exclusionary way Trump divides the populace. There is a qualitative difference from the quantitative numbers, so even this bare minimum showing, there may be some early hypothetical assumtions of a nation.

No one really knows except TRUMP, and my gut tells me that when he is merely playing the field m

Every major election is split. So what? America has a two-party system, just like you have two halves of a whole brain in your head. It works like that. Trump didn’t make it that way, he didn’t make people polarized.

Pence is infinitely worse than Trump. If you have a choice between a wildcard like Huey Long or another W, you choose Huey Long. It’s still probably going to be bad, but occasionally stack overflow errors happen so maybe there is hope?

There is gossip on the street such as Trump hates being POTUS, he is unintelligent, the people who have voted him in are beginning to feel cheated.

There may be a switch to this election, and this is not your ordinary conspiracy. And it goes down like this.

Trump was a very long shot to succeed, and his election was meant to deceive, but with a deception to which the sub normals could not rise to to realize this.

In fact, the guy is so bad, that his getting everything backward, like his cleaning up the swamp, while he is bringing it in big time; pays vindication to the liberal motto : I’m ok, you’re ok. So when the group who understand only wrongly aligned, controversial and obtuse rhetoric, expecting a wolf, but seeing only a sheep in deceptive clothing, they simply deduce this to the liberally guised framers, who put up some awesome barriers. Their well meaning hero has, in spite of these barriers, ubdauntedly fights on against all odds. He is a futuristic angina of opposites, a unifier, a non aligned, larger than life superhero.

If he succeeds, he will, instead of cleaning swamps, will have ushered in new opportunities to get around anti NWO fans, and instead, will down the line have everyone scratch their heads , thinking what a genius Trump is.

Actually, in a study of presidential IQ’s, he comes in near the bottom of the list. However, this is only a few weeks into the administration of the most perplexing president ever, reflecting perhaps the need for such a man, during the most perplexing times we find ourselves in.

It’s all about the ideology, or lack of.

Are you implying some sort of bio-political process, which determines or is determined by an ideological dialectic? Is the dialectical conflict and search for resolution an intrinsic chemical process, whereby to which socially opposing views play kinship to? Perhaps there is some vague nterplay there, but not nearly one which could be demonstrated as casual. Or maybe not?

He’s implying that if you’ve been paying attention to politics for longer than 8 months, you’d know that a close election doesn’t require a fanciful explanation, it’s just a normal thing that happens. That’s it. It’s pretty straightforward. If you have a two party system, and one of the parties can’t reliably win half the time or so, it will simply reform until it can, or go away.

It would appear, any sense of a normal process has been thrown out with the bath water, so that view is almost too simple. That’s exactly the battle cry of the simple People, who mistook simple Trumpism slogans for the real thing. Instead they got the reel thing an atrophied version of some reality show in the sky, which even now remains in Trump’s list of unforgivable sins for not winning an Emmy.

It only appears that way to a child. To the rest of us, a close election followed by the losing party being enraged and beating a drum about it being the beginning of the end is completely fucking normal. If the losing party happens to be the DNC, you can add to that the allegation that the elecction system needs to be changed on the basis of the fact that sometimes they don’t win.

The only abnormal thing about this election is that Trump managed to win with all that was arrayed against him.

Trump’s constituency are like well mannered children , brought up on the idea that if ideas and politics are conserved in the manner in which they were believed to be through, passed along by so called unchanging and proper behavior, we can make it despite the
compelling need for change.

A pluralistic society need not cast a glance to the age
old discussions going on between Parmenides and Heraclitus, as to a static view of a rightful society, or one predicated on constant change should constitute the ideal city-state.

Or the same conservatives may look foreward into a post humanistic world view, where they may ask
whether the dots are connectable as well. Can they?

Hardly, except by revising the data, or the rules by which historical revisions become fodder to every
Nuevo politician, who feels in himself imbued with unplanted oats, sustained levels of testesterone, usually with disastrous inauthenticity leading to mass hysteria. Once the suppression is lifted, alas usually
too late, it is over.
.

The multi ethnic dictum is not new, it has always
been the model for the world, ever since immigrants
became the source of populations in the US.

To restrict immigration now, where the rationale for it
simply does not exist, in the light of being able to
weed out undesirables, reduces the idea of the mix toward cleansing, genetic purification , narrow nationalism, where even a Germany of the 2nd Reich,
the arbiter and proponent of haute kultur this trend is
resurfacing, based on no modern equivalent, not going against the modern emerged notions of socio-political science. Some may vehemently disagree here, and within explicable rationale. But such a disagreement is oft a sublimely conflated retrogressive desire to return into a Romsntic idiom, more personal then social. There simply, there is no society on earth, where reactionary ideas can flourish. If, as in this case, it may, given Trump’s oratory skills and drawing personality, America may be privy to such, given its recurrent political naïveté.

So what can the deductions made to adults instead of well wishing children, totally unaware of the mistake
of trying to reverse a necessary trend? That it is
thinking alone that history could necessitate a trend which always reduces great empires to humility, and reality? Is such reality is unacceptable, can a failed reality show, pertain to the supression of a failed and unappreciation of a great artistic preforming genius?
Again perhaps. But what if the the outcome does not correlate to the result? Then the center will cave, certainly, and there are only to avenues to buttress this weakness: by an outward push of invading others’s sensibility, or an internal purge. Both may be attempted, simultaneously, sometimes not so subtly, by an imminent attack on the system of judicial oversight.

That the greatness of America has always consisted in its ideals and not of its affectations of an indolent and misinformed populace, which can continue to hold in the mistaken belief that it’s standard of living will always tend to be over and above of every other
society on earth?

Sure some orator can kiss ass to these delusional children, who have declared history dead, nothing at
all worthy of any kind of study, where, the only sure thing
is , like in a snail, to revert into the shallow walled safety of its own shell, and wait for the magic time, when they come out, and experience Abe’s the Oeggy
Sue

Peggy Sue type

naïveté of an era of shallow and naive innocence, driving candy colored cars, and disputing what effects they have caused? The Ugly American did come back
full blast, and the Vanishing Adolescent has left the
scene to retract into an idiotic
show of a childish reality, where stern Papa can fire at whim those whom he merely dislikes? A return to
the affects and probable thr effects of a pure late 19
, early 20 th century capitalism, where things were horrible, except the good old boys who looked and acted the part?

Sure, why not, if morality and amorality will become the grey area where one man’s goose is
unrecognizable from another’s gander. Sure, why not,
if what is promised, is what one gets, but is there a silly assumption which can assure such, where the handwriting is on the opposite may be the case?

All signs point in that direction right now, and it may get worse, a lot worse. Where deeper the doubt
surfaces, the more the denials will cause search for a
target whereupon these denials will target their forces, to escape the awful realization of self doubt?

Is this exactly what children do, every time, knowing full well the consequences of trying to hold their elders responsible, and the futility of lashing out at
them.

Is it simply a very clear difference between what is normal here, or abnormal?

Are those daring to question sanity akin to repressed children, trying to get rid of individual belief in favor of
what is politically correct among some undefined political elite?

The questions have to be asked to pursue the American Dream.

I’ve seen Trump supporters accused of a lot of things, but never ‘well mannered’.

Right. Trump supporters voted for a billionaire with zero political experience instead of the dozen or so established D.C. mainstream politicians he was running against because they don’t want change.

Yeah that seems right.

The rationale is very similar to the rationale Obama had when he did the same damned thing in 2011.

The restrictions are based on the reality that we actually can’t do this. The 7 countries the executive order focused on are two chaotic or corrupt to have reliable criminal or medical records of people wanting to emmigrate from there.

You aren’t making even the slightest, tiniest effort to understand why your political enemies do the things they do, and yet you are trying to conclude all sorts of things about their mentality, their secret motivations, and how they view the world.

Did it occur to you, for even one second, that you may want to ask conservatives questions about who they are and what they want, before deciding you know?

William Buckley was the only sanest and readable conservative I ever subscribed to. He could have been a great president, IF he wanted to. But of course, he had the manners not to run.