advertisement


Trump Part 12

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gaius

pfm Member
Tomorrow we have the Alabama Election.

Roy Moore, previously disgraced and alleged child molester verses Democrat Doug Jones.

Trump and Bannon actively supporting Moore; shocker.

Yet another sign of where this Administration stands, what matters.

Like them or not, hardly the Republican Party and many are saying NO.

Trump has become such a liability, beside the Russia probe, his actions are dangerous and ill thought to say the very least.
 
Jones is 10 points up, even according to Fox, let's hope justice prevails and leaves egg on faces!
 
Let us hope sanity prevails and this repugnant Republican clown is kicked into the weeds. In any sane universe Trump backing such a horrible individual would backfire badly on him, but in any sane universe Trump couldn’t exist for reasons of pure logic.
 
In any sane universe Trump backing such a horrible individual would backfire badly on him

tony.

quite frankly, i CAN NOT understand why this has not caused people to behead their politicians. not only are both men sexual abusers, but we are in the midst of a massive cultural frenzy about this sort of thing! i just don't get it -- actually, maybe i do: the media are not connecting the dots forcefully enough.
 
Let us hope sanity prevails and this repugnant Republican clown is kicked into the weeds. In any sane universe Trump backing such a horrible individual would backfire badly on him, but in any sane universe Trump couldn’t exist for reasons of pure logic.

^^^ By supporting this the Dotard has given the Dems a poster boy to run against 2018, they stand a good chance to take bake the Senate.
I think he'll get his 'tax reform' done, he got his judge, I can't see much more, no wall which will piss off his base, Hillary not in Jail, while everyday Muller gets closer.

The worst of it is he has no nuance, no decorum and demonstrates so little understanding of the real issue of this current World.

A billionaire thicky.

He whipped up so much hate and continues to do so, a white privileged suprematist.

Why folks fall for it is perhaps more of a concern.
 
Jones is 10 points up, even according to Fox, let's hope justice prevails and leaves egg on faces!

And Hilary was going to walk the election, who knows what will happen in that fvcked up place these days.
 
Drood, I agree that it sucks the air out of fighting the bad things Trump and the Republicans (sometimes supported by the Democrats) are doing, but I think it's also serving to unite the worst elements of the deep state i.e. the security services, many Neocons, the grotesque mainstream media etc with those who oppose Trump, which is what Caitlin was getting at here:

What should be happening IMO is a major overhaul of the Democratic Party. All the corporate, warmongering shills similarly wedded to the Neocon (read warmongering), neoliberal (read more inequality) ideologies as Clinton - who was so unappealing she couldn't even beat Trump - need to be ousted from the party so that a) the party once again appeals to the usual Democratic base who did not support Clinton in big enough numbers, thus hopefully being able to do well in the mid-terms and winning in 2020, and b) if and when they do win they actually try to bring about the change the people require, rather than just being Republican lite, and serving the ruling elites, again.

To continue my reply...

Yesterday I wrote this:
There are several reason progressives might wish to dismiss Mueller's investigation, or to diminish its importance. I think the three main ones are rooted in fear of (or anxiety about): 1. anti-climax; 2. distraction; and 3. collusion (with the "deep state"). I'll talk about each in turn.

And I addressed the first and second reasons here: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/trump-part-11.207870/page-90#post-3269725

I now turn to the third reason.

3. Fear of Collusion

I *think* the idea here is that to support the Mueller probe entails aligning oneself with the "Deep State", "corrupt MSM" and other nasty things progressives ought to avoid. This can be broken down into three claims: a. The Deep State exists; b. The Deep State is out to get Trump (via the Mueller investigation); c. progressives ought not to associate themselves with such nastiness. Again, I'll talk about each in turn.

a. The Deep State Exists

I don't know where the term originates (I think it was first coined by a Republican) but I don't find it especially helpful to talk about the "Deep State" in this context. I don't deny that there are strong vested interests and structures that act to resist change to a status quo that benefits the few not the many - this idea has a long tradition on the left, and the general concept is a useful one. The problem is it's all too easy to reify the idea of a "Deep State" and thus to see it as a vast entity, capable of orchestrating overarching conspiracies, rather than a set of convergent interests that act in a relatively impersonal way to stifle radical alternatives.

In the specific circumstances of Trump and the Mueller investigation, what's needed is a detailed analysis of who or what *precisely* is out to get Trump, and for what reason. I'm talking about naming actors and agencies... who's done what & when and why did they do it. Pinning it all on the Deep State is non-explanatory.

An aside on the mainstream media... I agree it should be viewed with a critical eye but treating everything in it as shilling for the Deep State (or whatever) is profoundly destructive. It plays right into the hands of Trump's assault on the very idea of a shared, verifiable truth that can form the basis of political decision making. As has been pointed out several times, the destruction of the very idea of truth is a key indicator of the rise of totalitarianism (be it of the Left or the Right). So, consume mainstream news critically, look at non-mainstream sources (again, *critically* - I don't believe everything I read in The Canary) by all means, but the Left should have absolutely no part in Trump's all out assault of so called "fake news" (i.e. anything that doesn't fawn over his every deed).

b. The Deep State is out to get Trump

I don't see this. Despite all the initial bluster about "draining the swamp" Trump has merely filled it with swamp dwellers he happens to like. His policy in the Middle East is hardly rocking the boat and most recently he's shown himself to be the ultimate "Zionist shill" by trolling Palestine and virtually every other state apart from Israel on an epic scale.

Trump is also non-ideological in the sense that he doesn't really have strong political views - as long as he's got power and he's getting attention he's happy. As such he would be the perfect lapdog for Deep State if it exists. The only thing he's held quite firm on is his apparent desire to thaw relations with Russia (I assume the Deep State does not approve) - but is that such a big deal when the rest of the Republican Party (+ Democrats) will vote for sanctions against Russia regardless.

In short, I don't believe Trump represents much of a threat to the Deep State and, in many respects is likely to be quite easily manipulated by it. In any event, Comey's late intervention in the 2016 election (resurrecting the Clinton email server issue) gave a small but significant boost to Trump's poll ratings so the Deep State can't hate Trump that much. Unless it's simultaneously anti-Trump and anti-Clinton... or Comey isn't in on the Deep State conspiracy...?

c. Progressives Should Keep Their Distance

I don't agree. If (as I believe) this is not a "Deep State" vendetta against Trump, but simply other agencies of the state doing what they are bound to do, they should be allowed to get on with it. Instead, the right of the Republican Party, Fox News etc are making noises about getting rid of Mueller, which ought to ring alarm bells.

If this *is* a Deep State conspiracy (it hates Trump and wants to get rid of him) it still might nevertheless find real evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part, whatever the motives for the investigation. Again, this is something I can support if it helps to loosen Trump's grip on power.

The only scenario I *would* have qualms about is if this were both a conspiracy against Trump *and* it fabricated evidence of wrongdoing to get rid of him, regardless of the truth. Even then I'd be *tempted* to shrug and rejoice in Trump's demise.

So, wrapping up, I agree with your last paragraph about the Democrats needing to get their own house in order. But at the same time they (and we) are entitled to hit Trump with everything we have including the Mueller investigation. Trump is dangerous and we must do everything we can to stop him.
 
drood.

i am really enjoying the new essay-style postings from you and other people over the past couple of weeks. i feel glad to be part of this twitter counter-revolution. i need to get back to PsB first and will then comment on some of what you've written. as may have noticed in another thread, i have had a profound religious experience over the weekend and need to get my act together, catch up with work, etc.

cheers.
 
tony.

quite frankly, i CAN NOT understand why this has not caused people to behead their politicians. not only are both men sexual abusers, but we are in the midst of a massive cultural frenzy about this sort of thing! i just don't get it -- actually, maybe i do: the media are not connecting the dots forcefully enough.
That's not it.

People are not all that logical, but are tribal and engage in doublethink. That's it.
 
^^^ By supporting this the Dotard has given the Dems a poster boy to run against 2018, they stand a good chance to take bake the Senate.
I think he'll get his 'tax reform' done, he got his judge, I can't see much more, no wall which will piss off his base, Hillary not in Jail, while everyday Muller gets closer.

The worst of it is he has no nuance, no decorum and demonstrates so little understanding of the real issue of this current World.

A billionaire thicky.

He whipped up so much hate and continues to do so, a white privileged suprematist.

Why folks fall for it is perhaps more of a concern.
Most of his supporters like and support the white privlege thing, though they don't understand it. It's just part of MAGA.
 
To continue my reply...

Yesterday I wrote this:


And I addressed the first and second reasons here: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/trump-part-11.207870/page-90#post-3269725

I now turn to the third reason.

3. Fear of Collusion

I *think* the idea here is that to support the Mueller probe entails aligning oneself with the "Deep State", "corrupt MSM" and other nasty things progressives ought to avoid. This can be broken down into three claims: a. The Deep State exists; b. The Deep State is out to get Trump (via the Mueller investigation); c. progressives ought not to associate themselves with such nastiness. Again, I'll talk about each in turn.

a. The Deep State Exists

I don't know where the term originates (I think it was first coined by a Republican) but I don't find it especially helpful to talk about the "Deep State" in this context. I don't deny that there are strong vested interests and structures that act to resist change to a status quo that benefits the few not the many - this idea has a long tradition on the left, and the general concept is a useful one. The problem is it's all too easy to reify the idea of a "Deep State" and thus to see it as a vast entity, capable of orchestrating overarching conspiracies, rather than a set of convergent interests that act in a relatively impersonal way to stifle radical alternatives.

In the specific circumstances of Trump and the Mueller investigation, what's needed is a detailed analysis of who or what *precisely* is out to get Trump, and for what reason. I'm talking about naming actors and agencies... who's done what & when and why did they do it. Pinning it all on the Deep State is non-explanatory.

An aside on the mainstream media... I agree it should be viewed with a critical eye but treating everything in it as shilling for the Deep State (or whatever) is profoundly destructive. It plays right into the hands of Trump's assault on the very idea of a shared, verifiable truth that can form the basis of political decision making. As has been pointed out several times, the destruction of the very idea of truth is a key indicator of the rise of totalitarianism (be it of the Left or the Right). So, consume mainstream news critically, look at non-mainstream sources (again, *critically* - I don't believe everything I read in The Canary) by all means, but the Left should have absolutely no part in Trump's all out assault of so called "fake news" (i.e. anything that doesn't fawn over his every deed).

b. The Deep State is out to get Trump

I don't see this. Despite all the initial bluster about "draining the swamp" Trump has merely filled it with swamp dwellers he happens to like. His policy in the Middle East is hardly rocking the boat and most recently he's shown himself to be the ultimate "Zionist shill" by trolling Palestine and virtually every other state apart from Israel on an epic scale.

Trump is also non-ideological in the sense that he doesn't really have strong political views - as long as he's got power and he's getting attention he's happy. As such he would be the perfect lapdog for Deep State if it exists. The only thing he's held quite firm on is his apparent desire to thaw relations with Russia (I assume the Deep State does not approve) - but is that such a big deal when the rest of the Republican Party (+ Democrats) will vote for sanctions against Russia regardless.

In short, I don't believe Trump represents much of a threat to the Deep State and, in many respects is likely to be quite easily manipulated by it. In any event, Comey's late intervention in the 2016 election (resurrecting the Clinton email server issue) gave a small but significant boost to Trump's poll ratings so the Deep State can't hate Trump that much. Unless it's simultaneously anti-Trump and anti-Clinton... or Comey isn't in on the Deep State conspiracy...?

c. Progressives Should Keep Their Distance

I don't agree. If (as I believe) this is not a "Deep State" vendetta against Trump, but simply other agencies of the state doing what they are bound to do, they should be allowed to get on with it. Instead, the right of the Republican Party, Fox News etc are making noises about getting rid of Mueller, which ought to ring alarm bells.

If this *is* a Deep State conspiracy (it hates Trump and wants to get rid of him) it still might nevertheless find real evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part, whatever the motives for the investigation. Again, this is something I can support if it helps to loosen Trump's grip on power.

The only scenario I *would* have qualms about is if this were both a conspiracy against Trump *and* it fabricated evidence of wrongdoing to get rid of him, regardless of the truth. Even then I'd be *tempted* to shrug and rejoice in Trump's demise.

So, wrapping up, I agree with your last paragraph about the Democrats needing to get their own house in order. But at the same time they (and we) are entitled to hit Trump with everything we have including the Mueller investigation. Trump is dangerous and we must do everything we can to stop him.
Drood, that's another very good post for the most part, IMO. My response to it and your previous one won't be anywhere near as well written but I'll give it a bash. It may not appear for a few days though as I'm kinda busy at the moment and I'll need a few hours at least to devote to it. We're talking a scientist vs a lorry driver here. This stuff is harder work for me :D

P.S. What I would say in the meantime is it might be worth considering that you've devoted many paragraphs of text to Trump, the investigation, the deep state (good points too), the progressive angle wrt it all etc, but only a short sentence in closing on the future of the Democratic Party.

My response will be much more focused on the latter, as I think it's very important in the grand scheme of things, it *currently being the only vehicle that can realistically remove Trump, weaken the deep state/media, and provide real change.

*There's much talk of forming a third party in some circles, but only talk at this point.

Later.
 
a. The Deep State Exists

I don't know where the term originates (I think it was first coined by a Republican) but I don't find it especially helpful to talk about the "Deep State" in this context. I don't deny that there are strong vested interests and structures that act to resist change to a status quo that benefits the few not the many - this idea has a long tradition on the left, and the general concept is a useful one. The problem is it's all too easy to reify the idea of a "Deep State" and thus to see it as a vast entity, capable of orchestrating overarching conspiracies, rather than a set of convergent interests that act in a relatively impersonal way to stifle radical alternatives.

I don't remember who said it first, but there's no need to go looking for conspiracy when consensus is a sufficient explanation.
 
a. The Deep State Exists

I don't know where the term originates (I think it was first coined by a Republican) but I don't find it especially helpful to talk about the "Deep State" in this context. I don't deny that there are strong vested interests and structures that act to resist change to a status quo that benefits the few not the many - this idea has a long tradition on the left, and the general concept is a useful one. The problem is it's all too easy to reify the idea of a "Deep State" and thus to see it as a vast entity, capable of orchestrating overarching conspiracies, rather than a set of convergent interests that act in a relatively impersonal way to stifle radical alternatives.

I have been revisiting "Yes, Minister"; "Deep State" has a name, Sir Humphrey Appleby...
 
My problem with the phrase "deep state" is that, whatever minimal meaning it had in the first place, in practice it means the paranoid, delusions of the alt-right and Fox news. I think mostly other people use the phrase as they like the sound of the words -- it's undeniably satisfying to say -- and I generally take it as a sign of something along the spectrum that goes from uncritical thinking to conspiracy theory nutjob.

It's certainly so overloaded and useful to the far right and this administration that careful speakers avoid using it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/13/donald-trump-white-house-steve-bannon-rich-higgins

PS Note in the above how Bannon and associates sound like the crazy left (as distinct from the intellectual and/or radical left).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top