Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 22, 2016

Mr. Trump Goes To Washington

Donald Trump toured Washington yesterday for backroom meetings with Republican party bigwigs, for pandering to the Israel lobby and for an examination by the neoconned Washington Post editors.

The Republican party has given up its resistance to Trump. See for example the Republican functionary John Feehery who opined on February 29 that Trump is an authoritarian, and:

We beat the Nazis and the Japanese in the World War II and protected freedom and democracy by beating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. It would be a damn shame if we lost it all by giving in to the authoritarian impulse in this election.

The same guy only twenty-two days later:

Republican voters can support the nominee picked by a majority of the voters, they can sit this election out, or they can start a third party. The last two choices give the White House to the Clinton machine.

I am not happy that Donald Trump could be our nominee, but I am learning to live with that distinct possibility.

That, in short, is the revised position of the Republican party. It has given up on fighting Trump and will now propel him into the White House. What will happen thereafter? Who knows?

Trump is pure marketing. A salesperson throughout. This video explains how his linguistics works - words with only very few syllables, strong buzzword at the end of the sentences. It is fourth grade reading level language. Exactly the level needed to sell his product to the U.S. public and the Republican party. He is an expert in doing this.

But what product does Trump sell? Does he know it? Does he know how that product functions? Is he serious in what he claims that product to be. I have my doubts.

So has Par Lang. He remarks on yesterday's Trump appearance at the U.S. Zionists beauty contests:

Trump's pander was so extreme that one ponders the possibility that he was mocking the audience.

Trump probably does not even care what political product he sells. For now he is selling the salesman himself. Buy Trump and all problems will be solved. He does this convincingly. Most of what he said so far is just nonsense and solely for marketing purpose. There are only few consistent political lines that did not (yet) change over time. These are the lines that rile the Washington Post editors:

Donald Trump endorsed an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs Monday during a day-long tour of Washington, casting doubt on the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and expressing skepticism about a muscular U.S. military presence in Asia.
...
“At what point do you say, ‘Hey, we have to take care of ourselves?’ ” Trump said in the editorial board meeting. “I know the outer world exists, and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities.”

Trump said U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” he said, adding later, “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

To this the editors opine:

Unfortunately, the visit provided no reassurance regarding Mr. Trump’s fitness for the presidency. “I’m not a radical person,” he told us as he was leaving. But his answers left little doubt how radical a risk the nation would be taking in entrusting the White House to him.

But who are the real radicals, the real radical risk? The salesperson Trump or the neoconned Washington Post publisher and editors? You may judged that from this excerpt at the end of the talk's transcript:

[FREDERICK RYAN JR., WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER]: You [MUFFLED] mentioned a few minutes earlier here that you would knock ISIS. You’ve mentioned it many times. You’ve also mentioned the risk of putting American troop in a danger area. If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS?

TRUMP: I don’t want to use, I don’t want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one thing that everybody has said, I’m a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me first. I spent, by the way he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of negative ads on me. That’s putting [MUFFLED]…

RYAN: This is about ISIS. You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS? [CROSSTALK] ...

The salesperson stopped there. Instead of answering that question Trump asked for personal introduction to the people taking part in the event. To nuke some lunatics in Toyota technicals is not Trumps idea of his product. He would not sell that. Not even for gaining the support of the WaPo neocons.

Buying Trump is buying a pig in a poke. One does not know what one might get. But I find it unlikely that he would pursue an interventionist policy. Then again - George W. Bush also pretended to be a non-interventionist - until that changed.

But Trumps current non-interventionist position is a big contrast to Hillary Clinton. She unashamedly offers her well known toxic brew of neo-liberal and neo-conservative orthodoxy. She will wage war, Trump may. As a foreigner that is the decisive difference to me.

But if I were a voter in the U.S. my position would be based on economic policies. There Bernie Sanders is surely preferable to Trump and very much preferable to Clinton.

Posted by b on March 22, 2016 at 01:45 PM | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

98;First,discard ideology.Its a dead end.A cul de sac of the mind.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 24, 2016 10:14:41 AM | 101

…a steady state economy, one global currency backed by specie, and processed through a globalized public bank… ?? - several posts.

Well the ‘steady state’ part is moot, and globalized not, as Switz. is just a tin-pot postage-stamp place, but ideas of this type are very much afoot.

In June we will vote the Vollgeld (full money - sovereign money) initiative, which would return money-creation to one organism, the Central Bank. (link, eng. - campaign site and rather simplistic.) Commercial banks would effectively be totally neutered. The Swiss love their Central Bank (in contrast to attitudes to the FED in the US) as its profits are returned to the ppl, half or 2/3.

We will also vote on a guaranteed minimal income (link eng wiki.)

Neither of these initiatives are from the ‘left.’ They are based on certain monetary theories and strands of ‘libertarian’ thought.

As everyone is still reeling from the Feb. 2016 vote serious discussions haven’t even started. This promises to be highly interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2016

http://www.vollgeld-initiative.ch/english/

here the Feb vote for me, in F, but one look at the issues will show it takes some dedication..

https://www.ge.ch/votations/20160228/doc/brochure-cantonale.pdf

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 24, 2016 12:18:29 PM | 102

Noirette @102

Thanks for the links. I was not aware of the Swiss banking initiative. I hope it passes.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 24, 2016 2:15:57 PM | 103

A compilation of pro-Israel sentiments from Trump, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wnu9WyH_iM
With bonus clips of Alex Jones, another "maverick", lol.


They're both scum.

Posted by: ruralito | Mar 24, 2016 3:08:32 PM | 104

@103 psycho

Have you seen Creating New Money? I think it's all about finance as a utility and how to get there. Coupled with a suitable inheritance tax structure it would effect your program, wouldn't it?

To me the salient facit of privately created money is that it's lent into existence. Yes it enriches its creators, but just as (more?) importantly it puts in place the cornerstone of 'the miracle of compound interest', the foundation of the unsustainability of 'capitalism'. Rich or poor we're all headed over the falls in a barrel as long as that's in place.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 24, 2016 5:49:51 PM | 105

If you look at the key staff and advisers Bernie looks the best, I think.

Posted by: ProPeace | Mar 24, 2016 10:09:53 PM | 106

Rufus@98
Adams' view of mental processes has demonstrated workability.

Mind and brain have long been considered separate mechanisms, altho they may well intersect.

The psychologist Alice Miller showed how the first 3 years of human life allowed the recording of potentially] all senses [sights, sounds, etc.] without any inspection or evaluation by a child. Such could lay dormant or become active at later time as, for example, fixed ideas and unknowingly interfere with present-time senses and considerations and evaluations.

As for the mind and brain, a crude demo might be:
1. Create a mental picture of a horse being ridden by a whale.

2. Look at your mental picture.

3. Consider that you used the brain compose the picture.

4. Consider that the result [picture} is stored in your mind. Also, you can probably move the picture around in space.

5. Consider the brain is clearly a physical object and its location is known.

6. Consider the mind is not clearly physical and its location is not clearly known.

And I know that Alice Miller's "First 3 years" studies were preceded by more comprehensive work of others [much earlier]. Nevertheless, her work explained much to many.

As for "spirit", that subject is a religious hot-potato and I'm feeling too cowardly at the moment to continue this post.

Posted by: Chu-Teh | Mar 25, 2016 1:35:17 AM | 107

Chu-Teh at 107 --

I thought that I had suggested that I agreed in very large part with Adams view. And just because we have difficult being rational doesn't mean why shouldn't try. Religion does tend to be a hot one.

in re 99 --

Isn't it funny how the elite always attacks anyone who seeks to challenge their power. The folks raping us keep telling us, there is no alternative. That's why we reds are always hated.

And I would note, the rising generations have a more positive view of socialism than my Cold War cohort.

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25, 2016 1:45:17 AM | 108

Cnu-Teh @107 said
"
6. Consider the mind is not clearly physical and its location is not clearly known.
"

I consider this statement BS. Do you have some supporting documentation?

And you thought you had problems writing about spirit......

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 25, 2016 2:22:00 AM | 109

79;You gotta be sh*tting me;Eve Ensler?Common Dreams?Nirvana is just around the corner!
I bet she'll call the hell bitch the words promise.
Cruz posts nude photos of Trumps wife,but won't concede that his wife is now fodder.What a little pos.The zionists love him.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:06:24 AM | 110

95;They had a opinion piece in the lying times today,where McCain calls the Gary Cooper character in For whom the Bell Tolls a personal hero,despite being a commie.What a hoot.
BTW Hemingway might be the most overrated author in American history.Only The Old Man and the Sea holds anything for me,the rest irrelevant between war turgidity.
He probably realized it too,so he snuffed himself.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:12:12 AM | 111

100;Yeah,real funny dat;Humble.sheesh.And the bit about the enlightenment.And he'll vote for the hell bitch?double sheesh.
The Zionist have put the enlightenment on permanent hiatus.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:16:13 AM | 112

@105

The Great Ponzi Scheme of the Global Economy


Michael Hudson:

[I]n order to have access to credit, in order to get money ... you have to pay the banks. ... It’s not production, it’s not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate. ... The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world. That’s why they’re paid what they are. ... That’s why I used the word parasitism in my book’s title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it’s much more complicated. The parasite can’t simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn’t realize the parasite’s there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host’s brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.


And 'the banks' have created the money they lend at interest from nothing. Why not ourselves through our government, right? Just as the fed is doing now, but make the money available to real people with real needs rather than just to the keep the grand larceny machine's bubbles inflated. 'Growing'. Until they burst. A few strategic changes to the plumbing could put things right in no time.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 25, 2016 4:40:14 PM | 113

Trump has a huge ego. I think that's the reason he wants to be president. He sees this country is screwed up and wants to go down in history as the guy that saves it. Look at the hat he wears, "make America great again". He doesn't need the money so isn't in for that. He's anti-war.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 26, 2016 10:20:42 PM | 114

Here it, Mr Trump tells the NY Times that our "Allies" are funding and backing the fake terrorist group ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh etc etc

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-27/trump-fighting-assad-and-isis-same-time-idiocy-allies-are-funding-terrorists

Posted by: That Hideous Strength | Mar 27, 2016 10:53:55 AM | 115

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.

 

Site Meter