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.
Uccisore,
There is some truth in what you are saying. Trump is not all or nothing, he will modify his immigration executive order. But that is not ideology. Ideology can not be compromised, and his handlers know it. That is what is at stake, the ideals upon which this country was built upon, there is no two ways about it. Conservatives by definition stick to their guns. If he compromises, he is more like a socialist then someone who abides by the edicts of his ideas and class. He will betray them. No doubt.
I intensely dislike the narrative that has been present since the primary where Trump is some sort of unusual event.
He’s a bog-standard Republican. Professionally, he’s not a politician so there are a lot of gaps in his early governance. Once he got elected, I don’t think anyone expected anything different. Rhetorically, he’s a populist. That’s not new for modern Republicans. Reagan and W used a lot of populist rhetoric and the Tea Party was a populist movement.
But other than that, from appointments to executive orders, it’s all been pretty standard Republican fair. That’s terrifying to me because I find the Republican Party terrifying. But it’s not new or strange. It’s all been pretty much what you’d expect.
There is some whiplash because Obama expanded W’s precedent on executive orders (set in the aftermath of 9/11) and basically used those to govern for the past 4 years. Different executive, different executive orders. It’s disastrous because the current executive wants disastrous things. But it’s not like we metaphorically shat the bed. We’ve been sleeping on a mattress made out of shit for a long time.
We’re still dealing with the aftereffects from Reagan, especially it’s shit-show of an apotheosis in W. That said, Clinton and Obama’s misguided neoliberalism were bandaids on a gunshot wound. But those bandaids were good for much of the donor class so that’s how you get disasters like Hillary. Just like how Reagan’s and W’s donor classes benefited from their reign.
If we need have masters, I think the choice is clear. But is our imagination so poor?
There’s a difference between how Trump acts and what Trump does. The unique, shocking, etc. part is all in the former. Like you said, what he’s done now that he’s President is mostly what you’d expect from any Republican. His campaign was unorthodox, and his background is unorthodox. But not what he’s doing.
Well, one difference there as I pointed out to PK is that Obama governed with executive orders for the last four years because the House and Senate were against him and he couldn’t get anything he wanted passed. Trump is passing executive orders that are in line with what he campaigned on immediately before and have congressional approval. I don’t know why Trump’s immigration restriction was done as an executive order and not a bill, but it mostly certainly was not because he was worried about it being shut down in Congress.
That’s the other thing that’s left out of Jerkey’s analysis. He wants to deconstruct how amazing (I guess) it is that Trump won a divided election- but Jesus Christ, anybody could have beaten Hillary. Not just because she was the worst possible candidate, but because she ran the worst possible campaign; was a continual no show, had no positions other than to remind people of her vagina and to insult people who supported the other candidate. Had three seperate FBI investigations into her, two of which were well known to the DNC long before her nomination was inevitable. I don’t like Trump much. If the DNC had put up anybody else, even Bernie, I probably would have stayed home from the polls. But I’d crawl through broken glass to vote not-Hillary.
So what?
This is one of my favorite exercises to use.
“So what?”
You said a lot of things. But
“So what?”
So, this is just another election, and the outrage/elation/exaggeration surrounding it is mostly unwarranted.
Like I agree with a lot of what you said. I was very alienated from the Hillary campaign because as a leftist I was not welcome on that scene. Coming at it from the left, Hillary and her cabal of Neoliberals were very sore winners. That makes sense because what Hillary learned from Obama was that you can’t even allow anything other than token resistance. Enter Bernie Sanders. I’ve loved the man for a long time. My college roommate had a poster of Brittany Spears with a snake and Bernie Sanders on his wall. That roommate reminds me of you, Ucci. We disagreed about a great many things but he influenced my philosophy in a substantial way. He was also the best man at my wedding. 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.
Didn’t work out that way and things got weird. Hillary’s reaganesque vision of social justice was that what we need are more black and women CEOs and the fundamentally healthy system will heal itself. That vision does great for generating donations but so what? I’m from the Midwest. That vision ain’t gonna sell there.
Given the choice between “obvious con man” and “actively hates you” I can’t blame my midwestern brothers for opting to stay home. It was a bad decision and things are going to get a lot worse for them. I’m very lucky that I’ll be mostly insulated from that (though, working internationally, things have gotten very interesting and not in a good way) but a couple of tens of thousands of dollars isn’t going to hurt me either way. But having lived in the midwest, that shit is life-or-death.
I always thought Juan Bosche was a bit of a joke but his whole Pentagonization theory, if you accept the internal colonization parts, is basically the best model we have right now. That’s a scary and bad thing.
No, Trump is really bad. The “so what” of Trump is hard to deal with because it is so vast. Tillerson is basically the only one I’m OK with. He’s a shitshow but “to the victors go the spoils”. We elected a man who wants to sell the country to Russia so we’ll sell the country to Russia. I get it.
Perry “abolish the DoE” for sec of DoE is bad. Saying the solution is folding nukes into the military (nukes is pretty much all the DoE does) is a terrifying idea. But it’s the same overall. You have people heading departments dedicated to destroying those departments.
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.
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.
That’s the kind of attitude that will continue the DNC’s transition to being a regional party.
The outcome is yet, still not anything but a foregone conclusion. The fact that his popularity is sinking to outrageously low levels, even if it could be ascribed as a rough beginning, is a tough sign.
That in the classic sense popularity is really important only in the sense, that it becomes increasingly a factor with the approach of congressional elections, bodes badly with the notion of the coming oligarchy.
The attack on the judiciary is really an intelligent move for this purpose, because this president is still testing executive boundaries, and this test is also a kind of stretching of them in the eyes of the public.
So the outrage is legitimate, as Uccisore questioned it, but there is a qualitative change going on there, where public opinion is slowly shifting toward some hidden center, which neither Bernie , or bad voting methods, or anything else can upset.
It really devolves the whole epic scene into the conceptual denigration of representative democracy, into the must to do, essential manifest destiny of the protectors. What they are protecting, however, is not the beliefs based on the ideals upon which we stand, neither the accustomed standards of living in the US, but a notion of prescription having to do with control, and/or the the fear of loss of it. It is social control which becomes this run away train, this is why Trump is a survivor, and will continue to be.
The bottom line is the vacuum created by the failure of Communistic ideology left a huge gap, which both Putin and Trump know to be an unstoppable political machine.
Whether it will be stopped, depends on the competency of regional DNC machines to create a newer grass roots machine, by re energizing existing albeit fading structures.
It could be a tough sign if that was actually happening, but it isn’t.
rasmussenreports.com/public_ … rack_feb10
Again, when your argument begins with not really knowing the facts, the rest doesn’t matter so much.
EDIT: Here it is broken down by executive order:
Rasmussen is certainly the most biased outfit there is, so it’s not a good guide toward facts.
Some people will base their facts on really unusual things, like I was at the checkout at the Supermarket the other day, and saw some really pro-Trump cover stories, but reminded myself that the publisher of thr Enquier is a Trump buddy. My God, every prediction of flip flop has come true, the China reversion toward a one China deal, per Trump conversation via telephone with the Chinese leader, to res ending e erything from NATO, where he will admit Bellaruse, to revision on Israel, and even the problem with unfair trade practices by Japanese automakers. The wall deal is still up, there is second look at trade agreements, and the EU is convinced the Iran nuke deal will hold, this gathered from some leaked behind closed door consultations on high diplomatic levels.
Immigration is stalling, and a new presidential order is in the works, modified. Mexico is going ahead with plans of building cheap American cars by Mexican labor, with US automakers defying any presidential pressure there. Nordstrom is discontinuing the fashion line of Ivanka, and the list goes on.
What does all this speak of the poor befuddled WASP who voted him in? Of course denial is a very powerful tool in the hands of adepts who can lie on any issue one day to the next, and the corruption has never been more obvious then the supposed D.C. swamp which was to be cleaned up. I am afraid it’s deception to further the grandiosity of the personality to hinder any transparency into the workings of corporate America,
. It is a very clever ruse for the power brokers to get in through the back door.
But, and here is the clincher, there was nothing nearly as effective , ideologically, then this, and all is justified in times of ideological confusion and war.
That this is/was a very sophisticated computerized simulation, I have no doubt. And yes, 1984 is here, and Big Brother IS watching, but it is not Trump, he is a minor player in tweet world, that is all. I am beginning to pity him, with what I agree is unfortunate role for him , stuck in an Iron Maiden , catch 24 situation…He would have been happier brandishing his brands on reality TV.
At least I have a source. Where did you get your claim about Trump’s approval from?
And anyway, Rusmussen leaned more in favor of the GOP in the presidential tracking polls, but the GOP actually won, so apparently they were doing something right.
My second link isn’t from Rasmussen, it’s from Business Insider. Do you not like them either?
You got a lot to say about how other people choose their sources, but seem shy to reveal your own for some strange reason. You can’t exactly quote Huff Po and the New York Times anymore after a rant like that, huh? 
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.
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?
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.
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.
.
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!
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.’
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.
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.
You say there’s no need to read other opinions, but then you immediately say this:
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.
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.
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.