Richard Stanley

Administrator
It's possible that Coats and Haspell didn't mention the wall because their congressional interrogators didn't ask about it. Then CNN inferred that therefore, the intelligence chiefs disagree with the President about the wall. That inference by CNN could in fact be "taken out of context", and not what Coats and Haspell meant to say, and they might have mollified Trump accordingly.
In addition to being questioned, there are supposedly over 40 pages of presentation about contemporary national security threats. I have not taken the time to read, but other outlets besides CNN have come to the same conclusion, and I believe that they are saying, at least, that they and their experts have.
Trump told the CNN reporter to call Coats & Haspell for more information. But did she do that? No, instead the CNN team took a few (out of context) snips from the testimony, and concluded on that basis that Trump must be lying. Now, I don't question for a moment that there are examples of Trump intentionally making false statements (aka lying), but this might not be a very good example. This might be just an example of some general confusion, aided perhaps by some obfuscation.

And that's another part of the tableau we're facing. I wouldn't trust anything Trump says; but then again, CNN also dishes out their share of horseshit, as Trump's base is well aware.
I think it quite possible to correctly opine that the vast majority of Trump's public utterances are lies, by one count over 8,000 now. And there is no reason to conclude that, appearances aside, that the media don't collude in their own manner towards a common hidden agenda. Many 'circumstances' brought Trump to this point, including NBC and The Apprentice.
You need to have mutually exclusive propositions to apply a Bayesian test. Why can't the Trump phenomenon be both ex-narcisso and ex-machina ?
Yes. You need to invent a new analysis scheme, Venn Based Bayes.
Yes, this is psychological priming at its best. And it wouldn't surprise me if it's some Democratic Party hack who finally declares the state of emergency, long after Trump's gone from office.
The tools to do so have been there for a considerable time, they have been used to some extent, but never with such a grandiose PR campaign, not to mention all the shenanigans.
What are you saying here? What's wrong with Trump having a private conversation with Putin? Is Trump the first US president that's ever had a private meeting with a foreign leader?
As far as I know, it is the first time(s) in the era of American superpowerdom at least. It is wrong to do this as a foreign power, such as Russia, can then claim that something else was agreed to. Even if this doesn't happen then our government employees need to have a record of what was said and agreed to, so that what gets implemented is in accord with what was stated in the meeting. There was no person, besides translators in attendance, and the American translator's notes were destroyed at Trump's request. One meeting only had a Russian translator, and Putin speaks English as well.

Trump is already in a compromised position relative to Russia, given his lying about the late pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow, for one. We found out from Russian media that Trump told the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, in the Oval Office, that he had fired Comey to take the pressure off of himself. Maybe you can ague that this action is evidence that the Russians are merely being honestly transparent, wasting leverage for no 'other' reason.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As far as I know, it is the first time(s) in the era of American superpowerdom at least.
Writing at Salon, Tizoc Chavez says "Trump’s use of personal diplomacy is a continuation of past presidential practice", although his style and approach are different. In support of this view, Chavez quotes his doctoral thesis, which specifically addresses the question of privacy. The thesis is at this link:

https://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-07212016-113731/unrestricted/ChavezDissertation.pdf

Search for the word "private" and you will find many such meetings described.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'm really disappointed that Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund would go on the Rachel Maddow show with such a partisan anti-Russian analysis. From any rational perspective, the demise of the INF treaty is bad news for every country. It's bad news for the survival prospects for the entire human race.

Furthermore, it's clear that the US wants out of the treaty because the Neocons want to vastly expand the US / NATO arsenal of nuclear weapons, augmenting it with an armada of short-range missiles located minutes away from Russian population centers. This is in a vain hope of re-establishing a nuclear first strike capability.

The US isn't backing out of the treaty because we're upset with Russian violations. The US is backing out of the treaty because the US has been openly violating it with easily retargetable 'defensive' missiles for years, and wants to do so even more flagrantly, without any fig-leaf of an excuse. There's no evidence that Russia has actually violated the treaty: the US says they've built a missile that violates the treaty, but the Russians say that their disputed missile's range is just above the permitted limit.

Cirincione's analysis that this is some sort of reward to Putin, assumes that Putin is just as insane as the US neocons. He assumes that Putin is a madman who actually enjoys the prospect of building a similar first strike capability to destroy Europe. He assumes that Putin enjoys wasting money on nuclear missiles and missile defenses, or even enjoys the idea of using them to destroy the planet. It's sheer psychological projection on the part of US new cold warriors, and Cirincione has been spending too much time hanging out with those nut cases. Hopefully, Putin's actual response will be an attempt to counter these intermediate-range missiles with some sort of hypersonic defense.

Maybe I shouldn't expect any better from Cirincione, since Wikipedia says that Ploughshare has generated $100 million in funding for arms control initiatives since 1981. I don't see how it's possible to generate revenues on that scale, without kow-towing to billionaire foundation agendas and Democratic Party politicians.

In addition to being questioned, there are supposedly over 40 pages of presentation about contemporary national security threats. I have not taken the time to read, but other outlets besides CNN have come to the same conclusion, and I believe that they are saying, at least, that they and their experts have.
I should not have let this pass. No doubt there was much more that went on, besides the few moments of sound bytes that were presented on the CNN panel show. One would need to read all 40 pages, and watch all the testimony, before it would be safe really to reach any conclusions. I wouldn't trust any of the Billionaire Mass Media to take on the task, and I wouldn't assume that anyone in the "alternative media" has taken the time to wade through it all, either.

But if the conclusion is simply that the question about Mexican border security was neither asked nor answered, I haven't seen any reason to doubt that. Even on that basis, it's jumping to conclusions, to assume that Coats and Haspell would disagree with Trump's position. If the Congress wanted to know, they should have asked. And if CNN wanted to know, they should have called Coats and Haspell and asked them point-blank. Instead they took the confusion as one more opportunity to jump down Trump's throat.

the vast majority of Trump's public utterances are lies, by one count over 8,000 now.
I don't question that many of Trump's public statements are deliberate lies. But, that count of 8,000 is from the Washington Post's fact checker. How many statements here at this website would get a green light from the Washington Post's so-called fact checker?? I submit that there's a lot of nuance being missed by this Billionaire Media Truth Oracle.

We had a discussion a while ago about Trump's claim that terrorists were being stopped at the border, which was called a lie by some media fact checker, but which was really a re-definition of the meaning of the word "terrorist".
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I'm really disappointed that Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund would go on the Rachel Maddow show with such a partisan anti-Russian analysis. From any rational perspective, the demise of the INF treaty is bad news for every country. It's bad news for the survival prospects for the entire human race.

Furthermore, it's clear that the US wants out of the treaty because the Neocons want to vastly expand the US / NATO arsenal of nuclear weapons, augmenting it with an armada of short-range missiles located minutes away from Russian population centers. This is in a vain hope of re-establishing a nuclear first strike capability.
Well, Putin has taken the bait, the tool that he is. It's off to the new nuclear arms race. You would agree, at least, that such a war would represent the end of the Age, no?

You may indeed be correct that American neocons are pushing this, but I can't see that Europeans can be happy about this ... unless they are specific individuals that understand the realpolitik perhaps. The intermediate range missiles only affect Europeans, or such as the Chinese. That is, unless the Putins or Xis have smuggled them into Mexico, Canada, or Cuba.

Does this represent a vain hope of "re-establishing a nuclear first strike capability"? I don't know, but this would be pretty naive as the Putins can simply press the launch button on their land and submarine based ICBM's.

Perhaps one can view Trump's and Putin's collaborative actions as 'politically targeting their respective peoples with more scare tactics? As is revealed in the social dynamics of the Nazi rise, it is only necessary for the love-hate birds to keep their bases crystallized, until sufficient pretexts can allow the complete suppression of domestic opposition, whether real on 'controlled'.

Are you OK with Cirincione also delivering an anti-Trump narrative at the same time? Maybe he is "just doing his job", as Eichmann et al. had stated.

As for me, I'm not going to take dividing sides with either neoRoman A or neoRoman B.

I don't question that many of Trump's public statements are deliberate lies. But, that count of 8,000 is from the Washington Post's fact checker. How many statements here at this website would get a green light from the Washington Post's so-called fact checker?? I submit that there's a lot of nuance being missed by this Billionaire Media Truth Oracle.
Whether or not the WaPo fact checker would give us a problem is besides the point. I'll stand by my facts and 'opinions'. The latter until someone wants to prove them wrong with more than their opinions and consensus reality viewpoints. As for Trump, I don't really need to know how little nuance the WaPo fact checker misses. I've watched enough of words coming directly out of the mouth (yes, I've seen his lips moving) of Trump to know for myself what he is. That he might say something true every once in a while is like the broken clock. His lip service to the true pains of his base are when the broken clock is correct. This is the same methodology of Hitler and Putin et populo-fascisti al..

Is the WaPo fact checker the Billionaire Media Truth Oracle, or is Trump the Oracle?

If you wondered, I have replaced the term 'Russians' with the 'Putins' (aka neoRoman Bs), so as not to denigrate the Russian people as a whole.

In any case, since you are questioning the veracity of the national standard bearers of the American mainstream media, it is interesting to note the continuing coverage by the emptywheel's Marcy Wheeler about the continually skewed coverage by the NYT of the 'Russian Collusion' investigation. NYT coverage that constantly emphasizes the special counsel's focus on 'obstruction of justice' rather than on the collusion aspects. Besides my own concerns about Mueller's skewing of the 9/11 'investigation', one has to wonder what the NYT is up to, and muddying the waters with the relationship of Maggie Haberman's family to the Trumps.

A suspicious mind might conclude that we are being primed with a coming big nothing burger of the covering up of a non-crime. Trump's Moscow tower never came to pass and he didn't invest any money in this. (Oops, he never does use his own money any more. He did learn something as he lost more than the $400+ million that he inherited from Fred.) Just as the German press of the Left had to fall on its sword, the Trumpistas are yet hanging on every word, waiting for the right pretext.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Well, Putin has taken the bait, the tool that he is.
On the contrary, Sputnik reports that Putin says he will not be drawn into a new arms race. He has promised to do research and development, which seems like a very rational response to me.

I can't see that Europeans can be happy about this ...
You might think they wouldn't be happy, but NATO did issue a statement fully backing the US withdrawal from the treaty. They blame the catastrophe entirely on Russia.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_162996.htm

In other words: the Europeans are still behaving like vassal states, even when their own neck is on the chopping block.

Does this represent a vain hope of "re-establishing a nuclear first strike capability"? I don't know, but this would be pretty naive as the Putins can simply press the launch button on their land and submarine based ICBM's.
This is exactly my point. This is Neocon insanity that benefits no one, not even themselves in any rational calculation.

As is revealed in the social dynamics of the Nazi rise, it is only necessary for the love-hate birds to keep their bases crystallized, until sufficient pretexts can allow the complete suppression of domestic opposition, whether real on 'controlled'.
No matter how cynical the social dynamics might be, we all know how things turned out in World War 2. Worldwide casualties of anywhere from 60 million to over 100 million. The catastrophe was unfathomable, uncountable. The collective firepower available to fight WW 3 must be ten thousand times greater, at least. So if you're trying to make me feel better, it isn't working.

Are you OK with Cirincione also delivering an anti-Trump narrative at the same time?
Whether or not he's just "doing his job": No, I'm not OK with it. Fraudulent anti-Trump narratives, painting Trump as a Putin puppet, only serve to inflame Trump's base.

And in case you haven't noticed, the positions I've taken also make me a rather obvious target as a "Putin stooge". After all, when Putin says 2+2=4, I agree with him. Obviously, so the argument goes, only a tool would say such a thing.

I'll stand by my facts and 'opinions'. The latter until someone wants to prove them wrong with more than their opinions and consensus reality viewpoints.
Hmm... here's my recap.

You said that Trump was lying about statements Coats and Haspell made to Congress on national TV. And as such, you said, he was asking us to doubt our own lying eyes.

I said, no, Trump might very well have made an accurate statement about Coats and Haspell. If anyone was lying in this particular case, it was CNN.

So now you are back to talking about generalities, and opinions. And I agree, Trump is often "Truth Challenged". I was talking about nuance, not generalities.

That he might say something true every once in a while is like the broken clock. His lip service to the true pains of his base are when the broken clock is correct.
So now I can agree with this part. Trump says truthful facts from time to time.

And when he does, that's when CNN and WaPo will tell their Democratic base that he's lying. Thus further enraging Trump's base, while priming their own base with disinformation as well.

And it's very possible that Trump will fall by the wayside, to be replaced by a Democratic Party fascist who will carry on with the groundwork being laid here.

NYT coverage that constantly emphasizes the special counsel's focus on 'obstruction of justice' rather than on the collusion aspects.
In the particular article quoted, NYT may have been focussed on obstruction, rather than on collusion. But the NYT had been pushing the collusion narrative earlier, hard, since 2017. And it's not the NYT's fault that their collusion narrative has collapsed into a "nothing burger" since last May. As explained by the Chinese expat newspaper "Epoch Times":

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-times-admits-no-evidence-exists-of-trump-russia-collusion_2528124.html

The New York Times admitted in an otherwise highly misleading article that after more than a year of investigation there still exists no public evidence that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. ...

Earlier reporting by The New York Times on the subject of collusion, including an article published on Feb. 15, 2017, was discredited by former FBI Director James Comey himself before Congress under oath as being almost entirely wrong.

But despite the Times’ spin, it inadvertently reveals some key information.

One of those is the admission that no public evidence exists of collusion. For over 1 1/2 years, the New York Times, alongside numerous other publications, have pushed the narrative that Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the elections.

As The Epoch Times has consistently pointed out, there exists no evidence of collusion. On the contrary, officials involved in the investigation, such as former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, have both publicly, as well as under oath before Congress, stated their investigation showed no evidence of collusion.

“A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts,” The Times reported in the May 16 article.

A suspicious mind might conclude that we are being primed with a coming big nothing burger of the covering up of a non-crime. Trump's Moscow tower never came to pass and he didn't invest any money in this.
That's right. Marcy Wheeler sees Trump's "free option" on the Trump Tower as a bribe, and she sees Trump's evasive position as a lie and an obstruction of justice. And from an ethical point of view, maybe Wheeler is right. Trump's Russian dealings are sleazy. But from the lawyer's point of view, how much was Trump's "free option" really worth? Certainly not $300 million, and maybe not worth much at all.

We found out from Russian media that Trump told the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, in the Oval Office, that he had fired Comey to take the pressure off of himself. Maybe you can ague that this action is evidence that the Russians are merely being honestly transparent, wasting leverage for no 'other' reason.
Getting back to that -- maybe the Russians are so transparent, because they simply don't have any leverage.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You would agree, at least, that such a war would represent the end of the Age, no?
The question is whether anyone, anywhere, would live to see the Next Age. Regardless of bloodline, economic status, or deep underground survival silo ownership. I like to be optimistic and hope that some human being, somewhere, would survive. But I don't feel any confidence about it.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As for me, I'm not going to take dividing sides with either neoRoman A or neoRoman B.
I'm not asking anyone to take sides, and I'm not taking sides with Russia. There is some inevitable reality to geopolitics, and at some level the US and Russia must be seen as competitors. I have no interest in seeing the US defeated by Russia in any war between the two.

But, isn't it possible to apply nuanced analysis, even to neoRoman A vs. neoRoman B? I mean, Julius Caesar and Nero were both Romans, and neither was any sort of saint, but they weren't peas in a pod.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
But, isn't it possible to apply nuanced analysis, even to neoRoman A vs. neoRoman B? I mean, Julius Caesar and Nero were both Romans, and neither was any sort of saint, but they weren't peas in a pod.
As the Right is wont to say these days, "no two snowflakes are alike".

That said, faux-populist Julius was loved by his base and reviled by many others, especially true-believing fans of the republic. There are a few rogue (revisionist) scholars that think that Nero's reputation, at least, may have suffered to some extent by the propagandic pens of the subsequent historical commentators. I suspect that this was done to help establish the mythos of Christian persecution, amidst the convenient and/or contrived confusion over Chrestians versus Christians. And that this is the cryptic reason why the Jesuit General is termed Papa Nero.

Of course it is possible to provide nuanced analysis between Russia and the USA, between Putin and Trump. On the surface, the USA 'appears' to have taken over the mantle of geopolitical competitor to Russia that had been played by Great Britain. Frequently forgotten, in the distractionary dogfights over the centuries, is the various peoples and lands swallowed up in the mutual conquests and colonizations that transpired. Was the British Crown 'really' upset with their relatives in the Russian Crown while they were playing on the geopolitical chessboard? As such, I don't really see much need to view things different today, other than that the respective proxies are sitting in the Kremlin and the White House. Can't have people keep complaining about kings and such, when covertly controlling rigged 'democracies' and mass media provides the much better illusion of autonomous 'freedom', as per Goethe's saying ("There are none so enslaved that believe they are free.")

The question is whether anyone, anywhere, would live to see the Next Age. Regardless of bloodline, economic status, or deep underground survival silo ownership. I like to be optimistic and hope that some human being, somewhere, would survive. But I don't feel any confidence about it.
Your question is open for great debate. Christians can't agree on what their Good Book says, but it seems to be telling us that some 'entity' has a plan to preferentially save the Elect and some portion others that can survive 7 years in the casino of tribulation.

According to Science, humans survived the last Ice Age. But we are still arguing about such as lost cities, what might have existed on the coasts of oceans that were 400 feet lower then. How did Solon's Egyptian sources know the right time for the oceans to have been lower. Maybe they guessed, maybe they dreamt it, maybe they passed the knowledge down from generation to generation? Or maybe Plato just made it all up?

In any case, let's assume that I am correct, some fucking how, that some 'agency' encrypted an apocalyptic finale to the current 'zodiacal age' and that this corporate 'agency' deemed it important to assist 'God's Plan', as it were. If so, would this agency leave it to chance that it was only controlling one, or none, sides of the metaphorical chessboard? And if it was going to control one, or both, sides, then it would not do for said agency to be too exposed in its control, lest too many individuals grow concerned that 'humans' had their fingers on the scales of fate. But at least this agency might come armed with the appearance of divine imprimatur, ... and the blessings of Jordan Peterson.

Hopefully the latter will not eat so many cows as to destroy my supply of Tillamook Toasted Coconut Fudge Gelato.

Of course, maybe the plan is just to make everything appear like an 'apocalyptic' catastrophe has happened, prune out the unwanted 'weeds' from the garden, and start over with a master plan? One culture and one set of 'Divine' Laws?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Well, it has finally come. Trump has managed to get his national emergency invoked, assuming it doesn't get overturned by the Supremes.

The following excerpt is a good article discussing the numerous reasons that a wall is a massive waste of money, as agreed by the Republicans, the Democrats, and even the libertarian Cato Institute.

After weeks—years, really, but lately more urgent—of debate over the Trump administration's proposed wall at the US-Mexico border, Congress will vote on a spending bill Thursday that includes $1.375 billion for 55 miles of border fence construction. In response, president Donald Trump signaled that he will declare a national emergency to get the wall built regardless. Doing so will create more problems than it solves.
Beyond the politicization of a wall as a cure-all for immigration woes, border security experts continue to stress—as they have since Trump's campaign days—that a physical wall is simply not a practical or effective way to support law enforcement at the border. While human rights and privacy groups raise important concerns about alternatives like border surveillance technologies, or the concept of a "smart wall," the fact is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress largely agree on how to fund border patrol and enforcement technologies. And despite the pressures of a looming deadline that may yet again shut down the government, Capitol Hill has denied Trump the contiguous wall he has so adamantly championed. ...

But as well, doing this will open the door for future presidents, if we have any, to declare such emergencies based on empty political rhetoric. There have been quite a few national emergencies declared, some still in effect, but most people agree that these had some valid logic to them.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
And so, last Friday, Agent Orange Leaks (AOL) delivers his personal announcement of the non-emergency at the border, by indeed telling us that he "did not need to do it", and that he is only doing this for the sake of his re-election in 2020. In other words, the real emergency is the 2020 election and the need to appease the likes of Sean Hannity and the Brown Shirts that have formed the new Trumpublican Party. Oddly, it seems to have caused a rift between AOL and Ann Coulter, but this is likely just for appearance sake. AOL then immediately hops on a plane to go golfing during the non-emergency.

The amazing(?) thing about AOL's performance was his ability to deliver his long, sing-song delivery of what the governmental process would/will be, and how it seems to perfectly have matched the delivery of Sean Hannity. See the talking points comparison at 5:00 in: https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-accused-of-over-influenced-by-hannity-right-wing-media-1444068419580

Debate is raging, as in was beforehand, about the motive(s) for AOL to invoke the fake emergency powers, actually just another "executive order". In fact, AOL could have elected to not use the term 'emergency' in doing so, and thus taken some rhetorical ammunition away, especially in the court challenges - already being filed.

Whatever the real motives, some commentators are voicing the bottom line concern that this action will indeed precipitate the end of constitutional government 'as we know it', for whatever that is worth at this point. In other words, we can at least drop the pretense of what has been going on for a long, long time -- the imperium will become official.

But will the new emperor have any clothes, if the ~70 years of alliance with Europe is being dissolved before our eyes? The announcements of the former imperial auxiliaries in Munich seeming to indicate that AOL and his minions are wreaking permanent damage on the old order, albeit that some are tempering their comments with such that Trump is only a symptom of deeper issues:

...
“The Europeans are holding their breath and thinking that it’s maybe only two more years,” said Victoria Nuland, a former senior American official. “At the same time, they don’t want to do anything to wreck things further or to insult Trump personally and risk an angry response.”
A growing number of European voices warn that the current trans-Atlantic discord has more fundamental roots, and that there will be no returning to the past.
Mr. Trump is not the cause, said Norbert Röttgen, the chairman of the German Parliament’s foreign relations committee, but a symptom of the tectonic shifts in geopolitics that have led to the return of great power rivalry and centrifugal forces away from multilateralism.
“In the post-Trump era, there is no return to the pre-Trump era,” he said. “The status quo was Europe’s security is guaranteed by the United States. That won’t happen again.”
Jan Techau, director of the Europe Program at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin, worries that the intervening gap will mean strategic vulnerability to Russia and China. The United States faces “a superpower’s dilemma,” Mr. Techau said.
It has to “pressure allies to do more,” he said. “At the same time, the message has to be ‘We will always be there.’”
“Trump does not understand the price he pays in strategic terms when he bashes his allies so publicly and openly,” Mr. Techau added.
If there is any ambiguity, he said, Russia and China know that the security guarantee is no longer real. “When that protection goes,” he said, “then this strategic space is up for grabs.”
In lauding AOL at the Munich conference, Mike Pence was met with utter silence, while Pence also attacked such as Germany's gas pipeline deal with Russia and the recent sanctions business with Iran, which are costing European businesses much more than American ones. Fortunately, I have been assured that Russia has no interests whatsoever in all these matters. which may indeed be true, if Putin and AOL are just following orders. But from a conventional POV, Russia can only be smiling at the widening cracks mentioned by the 'saturnine' Lavrov.

Whatever the case, we are being told that the old order is kaput, and that one seeming doofus, because of personal ambitions, otherwise an incompetent businessman (whose only core competence is grift such as global money laundering), has managed to pull such chaos off by himself. And the grease that lubricates it all is the cynical pandering to the lowest strata of insecure whites that got left behind by the global elites. This is not strictly an American phenomenon, but a global one of nationalist fascism, part of the centrifugal forces moving away from multilateralism.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Whatever the real motives, some commentators are voicing the bottom line concern that this action will indeed precipitate the end of constitutional government 'as we know it', for whatever that is worth at this point.
The following excerpts are from an article from one of those predicting, like me, the de facto end of the Republic:

...
If you think the Republicans in Congress are going to stand up to Trump’s fake national emergency in order to defend the party’s long-held principles, or to assert the constitutional authority of the legislative branch, you haven’t been paying attention for the past three years. Trump said he would win so much that you’d get tired of winning—the lone arena in which this is objectively true is how he has imposed his will on his fellow Republicans, who have surrendered abjectly to him.
That’s why, on the national emergency, Trump is about to win again. Republican officeholders like Maine’s Susan Collins will surely reach for the thesaurus to find appropriate adjectives (“troubling,” “disturbing,” “unsettling”). The naysayers will look over their shoulders at a party base that stands solidly behind the president. And when the rubble clears, Trump will still be standing, and another key element of the catechism—this time, limited constitutional government with a separation of powers that was outlined by James Madison and other framers—will be in ruins.
At times, it’s possible to imagine the president almost willfully testing his party, musing about whether there is any part of its belief system that he cannot compel Republicans to abandon. Is character key to a good leader? White evangelicals, who once overwhelmingly supported that proposition, now reject it by landslide margins. Are deficits a mortal danger to the national economic health? Are international alliances crucial to national security?

...
Those of us—the majority of Americans—who are outside of this circle have watched these past few years with a mix of incredulity and anticipation. Any moment now, the CNN megapanels hint every day, Robert Mueller or federal prosecutors in Manhattan will be issuing indictments or a devastating report that will drive the president from office. Soon, a credible Republican—John Kasich? Bill Weld? Larry Hogan? Charlie Baker? Nikki Haley?—will emerge to challenge Trump in the 2020 Republican primaries. Any moment now, Trump himself, driven into panic and despair by a rising tide of condemnation, will resign his office.
What we’ve actually seen, as opposed to what we might hope for, offers a different likelihood. There will be no Republican revolt. Enough of the party will dismiss out of hand any evidence of criminal or impeachable behavior. A loyal attorney general and Supreme Court offer further sources of protection. And while surveys say a solid majority of voters now would refuse to reelect Trump, the combination of the Electoral College and a Democratic Party fully capable of blowing this opportunity makes a Trump second term a reasonable possibility. ...

Chief Justice Robert's recent vote with the liberal minority on abortion was merely a show vote, to provide the pretense that the court is still independent. But, when this fake emergency is presented to the court Trump will prevail, one way or another. And then the Trumpista's will have to make sure that there will be no subsequent credible election, because they cannot allow a Dem president to wield the power that they have ceded to Trump.

...
Pelosi warned Republicans that a future Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency if they wanted to. While she said she's not advocating that Democrats do so, she said Trump is setting a precedent that should make Republicans nervous.
"If the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people," she said on Thursday. "You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today," she said, referring to February 14, 2019, the day that marked one year since the school shooting in Parkland, FL, where 17 people were killed. ...

There is no other issue that can solidify political support for such as Trump than a potential threat to gun rights, ironically a right granted to protect slave owners from their unhappy slaves. Doubly ironic, where one of the foundational heroes of Western Civilization, Joseph, colluded with his 'Pharaoh' to make the free Egyptians happily sell themselves into slavery. (Genesis 47)

"There's a sucker born every minute".
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
And then the Trumpista's will have to make sure that there will be no subsequent credible election, because they cannot allow a Dem president to wield the power that they have ceded to Trump.
I agree that this is a significant downward step in the quality of government. Before we had the brainpower of the entire Congress devoted to debating and battling over budget allocations, and each congressperson at least partially accountable to a local constituency of voters. Now all of that is basically a waste of time, with the President having the power to override the process.

Libertarians talk about the wisdom & intelligence of the market, as a result of the sum total of individual efforts making up the "invisible hand". The market and its wisdom, unfortunately, create a process that ultimately concentrates economic power in fewer and fewer hands, and the collective intelligence of the market ultimately evaporates. Similarly, to the extent that "democracy" benefits from the real participation of individuals with different perspectives, we now see that advantage disappearing. Or, conversely: whereas before we had an entire congress full of seeming doofuses to hash things out, now everything is in the hands of just one doofus who is going to make his idiosyncratic determinations about the US government's trillion dollar budget.

The Democrats say they're horrified by the demise of constitutional government. But is it my imagination, or do they seem much more interested in salivating over the power they expect to win in the next election? Why am I not reassured at the thought that we might have a Democrat making all the decisions?

And then the Trumpista's will have to make sure that there will be no subsequent credible election, because they cannot allow a Dem president to wield the power that they have ceded to Trump.
I'm sure the "Trumpista's" will do their best to prevent losing any forthcoming election, credible or not. But maybe they'll succeed, and then again maybe they won't. If we're making predictions, my bet is that the Democrats will field some candidate equally as unpalatable as Trump, and that the election will be close again. Either way, I expect that the billionaire capitalists and neocon Zionists (be they Catholic, Jewish or whatever) will be satisfied with the outcome.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I'm sure the "Trumpista's" will do their best to prevent losing any forthcoming election, credible or not. But maybe they'll succeed, and then again maybe they won't. If we're making predictions, my bet is that the Democrats will field some candidate equally as unpalatable as Trump, and that the election will be close again.
Jerry, I think we can be pretty certain that the outcomes are pretty limited; predetermined ('predestinated' as the Bible has it for the Elect) for us. The Dems are already creating a huge primary field, certain to provide Trump with a lot of ammunition for the general election, and indeed, a scenario that could lead to such an unpalatable Dem foil for Trump.

In this regard, as to predictions, it may be time to review the 1958 Trump episode of the CBS TV series Trackdown, appropriately titled (for today) The End of the World.
  • Walter Trump is a con man, "the high priest of fraud"
  • Trump sells dubious products, including special umbrellas to protect against meteorites, an allusion to the new US Space Farce
  • Trump holds a tent meeting, an allusion to MAGAhead rallies and the evangelicals - with their old tent revivals
  • Trump is "the only one" who can save the town
  • Trump wants to build a wall
  • The Texas Ranger that tells Trump he is under arrest gets shot

Remember, too, that Prescott Bush was one of the initial investors in CBS. Bush and the Harrimans, uber-Dems, were money launderers for the Nazis.

What are the statistical odds, Jerry, that this show was a 'creative' coincidence? And, .... if the show was not such a coincidence, then how much more is being staged for us in so-called real life?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Consistent with what I discussed previously, the following excerpt is from an article that asserts that the Supreme Court will indeed give Trump a win on the Wall Emergency, if they merely follow the pattern that they used to finally approve Trump's Travel Ban:

...
So what will the Supreme Court do when confronted by (1) the president’s invocation of a broadly worded statute, (2) to enact a scattershot, arguably racialized form of border control, (3) where there are colorable arguments that president has not satisfied the statute’s triggers for extraordinary action, and (4) in any case, the executive’s own words and data show that the policy is unwarranted?
Here’s an answer using only a few choice quotes from the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the revised and slightly narrowed travel ban: It would start by observing that the statutory basis for the wall “exudes deference to the president in every clause.” It would build on this by asserting that “the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals” is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”
Then the kicker: If the policy’s challengers point to the president’s own statements on Friday, or his own past conduct in the context of budget negotiations to show that there is no border emergency, or that the real motive at work is to fulfill a campaign promise with 2020 in mind, the court would then remind them, again quoting the travel ban decision, that it is not “the statements of a particular president,” but rather “the authority of the presidency itself” that is at issue. In effect, the court here said that it would refuse to take Trump at his word, and instead ignore evidence of either flawed motive or insufficient justifications. English law had a Latin maxim that nicely captures the court’s thought here: “rex non potest peccare,” or the king can do no wrong.
Under this doctrine, the fact that the president’s aim of circumventing Congress’s control of appropriations is arguably unconstitutional matters no more than the president’s expressions of animus mattered in the travel ban case. ...

Of course, I should also point out that some are yet debating that all of this is just a cynical political ploy by Trump, such that in the scenario that Trump loses, that Trump can say to his base that he exhausted all of his options. I do not believe that this otherwise plausible scenario is in the cards however.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
In this regard, as to predictions, it may be time to review the 1958 Trump episode of the CBS TV series Trackdown, appropriately titled (for today) The End of the World.
At YouTube, commenter Rocco Anders fleshed out more parallels:


-The episode is directed by a man named DONALD.
-Trump is portrayed as a huge populist, just like the President.
- 6:10 "Be careful son, I can sue you." Trump often threatened to sue people before becoming president.
- 7:40 "Trump hasn't given the Sheriff a thing to go on," Trump fans constantly say this when someone brings up Robert Müller.
-"It's funny how a big lie can make us all kids again" Sounds like it references Trumps divisive lies, that make us argue, and act like kids.
-The lawman who investigated Trump is played by an actor called ROBERT, just like ROBERT MÜLLER.
I had been planning to write that maybe this is a coincidence after all. The name 'Trump' could easily be a reference to Donald's father. The 'wall' theme, the 'sky is falling', lies and threats of lawsuits, are all commonplace tropes. Donald and Robert are common names, and fishing through the list of actors and other contributors is beyond the usual typological analysis. The parallels aren't dense or sequential, as required by Macdonald's criteria. Also, as another commenter on the YouTube thread pointed out -- it's possible that the young Donald Trump saw this episode, and has been consciously or subconsciously acting it out ever since.

At any rate, I'm not sure the evidence of conspiracy here is strong enough to convince the naysayers. But: if this is a coincidence, it certainly is a freakish one.

Contrary to this:
  • The Texas Ranger that tells Trump he is under arrest gets shot
What actually happens at the end of the show is that the crooked local sheriff brains Texas Ranger Hoby Gilman over the head with a rock. But, Hoby quickly recovers, albeit with a nasty scratch on his head. Later, the sheriff fires a shot at Hoby but apparently misses him, Hoby punches Trump in the gut, and Trump goes down. It's not clear whether Trump was hit by the stray bullet, or whether he's dead, or just unconscious. It turns out that Trump was planning to share the booty with the sheriff, who confesses his sin to the crowd. The town's prettiest girl is impressed by Hoby's handling of the situation, flirts mercilessly with him, and they walk off the set together hand in hand.

One big happy ending.

the following excerpt is from an article that asserts that the Supreme Court will indeed give Trump a win on the Wall Emergency
I agree with the Politico analysis. This Supreme Court is not going to stand up to Trump.

And, .... if the show was not such a coincidence, then how much more is being staged for us in so-called real life?
In the show: if Trump represents Trump, then perhaps the crooked Sheriff represents the Democrats? Where is Texas Ranger Hoby when we need him? Who is going to save all the idiot townspeople? I don't see any such savior on the horizon, notwithstanding any biblical promises.

The problem with the theory of predestination, is that it isn't scientifically testable or verifiable. No one can predict what will happen in advance, because God's will is inscrutable and known only to Him. And the same thing goes for Melqart the hidden ruler, if indeed His Majesty does exist. And no matter what happens, one can always argue that it was inevitable afterwards.

According to my old college thermodynamics textbook, the behavior of matter at the microscopic level is random. However, the behavior of larger aggregates of matter is always predictable within a limited range of statistical variance. But, that old textbook didn't address the question of human so-called 'free will', or the outcome of elections.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The problem with the theory of predestination, is that it isn't scientifically testable or verifiable. No one can predict what will happen in advance, because God's will is inscrutable and known only to Him. And the same thing goes for Melqart the hidden ruler, if indeed His Majesty does exist. And no matter what happens, one can always argue that it was inevitable afterwards.
Don't be so literal Jerry, especially in the 'spiritual' sense. What we are discussing here is whether or not individuals have a better chance of maintaining their elect (aka elite) status if they have access to better conditions from the womb onwards. Does having access to better food (including while in the womb), the best education, $400 million inherited dollars (in the case of The Donald), better social networking, providing the cultural framework for the lower strata, etc. provide a superior means to maintain elite status for that individual and its offspring?

According to my old college thermodynamics textbook, the behavior of matter at the microscopic level is random. However, the behavior of larger aggregates of matter is always predictable within a limited range of statistical variance. But, that old textbook didn't address the question of human so-called 'free will', or the outcome of elections.
Right, like it also did't discuss Machiavelli and realpolitik. Nor the Lone Gunmen episode showing an airliner flying into the WTC, before 9/11. Maybe 'predestination' is just a fancy word for 'plan'?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
In the show: if Trump represents Trump, then perhaps the crooked Sheriff represents the Democrats? Where is Texas Ranger Hoby when we need him? Who is going to save all the idiot townspeople? I don't see any such savior on the horizon, notwithstanding any biblical promises.
Maybe the crooked sheriff represents the Republicans, or maybe both the Republicans and the Clintonistas?

If Ranger Hoby Gilman is Robert Mueller, then supposedly his investigation will be over as soon as next week, but rumors are leaking out that the report will not be definitive. Who's to say, maybe Trump's umbrellas really did save Talpa, Texas. As 'real' Donald Trump says: "Time will tell".

And yes, Jerry, the show left Trump's fate to be ambiguous, though I think we were to assume that Trump gave up the ghost. Ranger Hoby didn't even check Trump for a pulse. This Trump went to the Hidden Resort.

Here's some more comments on the episode:

...
Interestingly, the character's speech is so similar to the president-elect's, it almost seems as if Donald Trump borrowed some catchphrases from Walter Trump. A portion of the dialogue follows:
Narrator: Hoby had checked the town. The people were ready to believe. Like sheep they ran to the slaughterhouse. And waiting for them was the high priest of fraud.
Trump: I am the only one. Trust me. I can build a wall around your homes that nothing can penetrate.
Townperson: What do we do? How can we save ourselves?
Trump: You ask how do you build that wall. You ask, and I'm here to tell you.
During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump declared, "Politicians have used you and stolen your votes. They have given you nothing. I will give you everything. I will give you what you've been looking for for 50 years. I'm the only one."
On June 16, 2015, Trump said, "I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively."
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What we are discussing here is whether or not individuals have a better chance of maintaining their elect (aka elite) status if they have access to better conditions from the womb onwards.
"The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned" (per Ecclesiastes 9:11) but as the 19th century newspaperman Damon Runyon added: "that is the way to bet." And time and chance happen to all, even bloggers.
 
Top