Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

Vintage Kanye West: “George Bush Doesnt Care About Black People”

April 25, 2018 3 comments

As many of you must have heard by now, Kanye West posted some tweets earlier today in which he expressed a measured degree of support for Donald Trump. As expected, every corporate media outlet and hordes of SJWs on twitter are trying to portray him as some sort of dangerous and unbalanced idiot. Then again, this would not be the first time the corporate media was upset about something Kanye West said about politics or politicians.

Here is the famous clip from 2005 where Kanye gives one probably the most succinct (and highly unexpected) analysis of the policies of Bush43 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Some of you might also remember that slavish corporate media outlets were highly critical of him at that time. Ironically, his televised comments went on to open the floodgates for widespread and open public criticism of the many failings of Bush43 administration.

What do you think? Comments?

Thoughts on Kim Jong-un’s Motivations Behind Wanting to Meet Trump

April 20, 2018 8 comments

With the corporate media fixating on non-issues such as Comey’s recent book, the Mueller fishing expedition, Stormy Daniels latest BS claims and the most hilarious photo of Michael Cohen, it is not easy for many people in USA to be aware of the world beyond their borders. Also, as they say, nobody has gone broke underestimating the intelligence of american public. With that in mind, let us talk about an apparently unusual recent development in the state of relations between DPRK and USA. In case you missed it, the most important words in that sentence are ‘apparently unusual’- for reasons you shall see later on in this post.

Now, I am sure that at least some of you must have wondered about what factors were behind the sudden improvement in state of relations between DPRK and ROK (South Korea) since just before the 2018 winter Olympics. Why have relations between these two countries experienced a significant positive shift since the beginning of this year? And what does any of this have to do with the recent diplomatic overtures DPRK is making towards USA?

As regular readers know, I have written more than a few articles in the past few months about DPRK, especially its ICBM and nuclear weapon program. One of the more recent articles written by me on that topic made an interesting claim about how ICBMS and Nukes finally got Kim Jong-un the international respect he (and his predecessors) have always wanted. In that post, I also pointed out that Kim Jong-un’s recent interest in dialogue with ROK and USA were actually quite predictable since he has, in the past, repeatedly talked about his desire for such talks after DPRK acquired nukes and reliable ICBMs.

In fact, the stance of DPRK on talks with South Korea and USA have been pretty consistent over the years. They have also been very clear about what they want from any such deal. To summarize, DPRK wants a guarantee of security and non-aggression from USA and South Korea in addition to lifting of all economic sanctions against them in exchange for any deal which requires them to freeze their nuclear and missile program. The funny thing is such a deal with DPRK was reached and almost implemented in 1994. But american hubris and delusions of omnipotence ended up sabotaging what was probably the best (and only) chance of DPRK giving up its nuclear weapons.

The failure of that deal under Clinton42 and being labelled as part of ‘the axis of evil’ by Bush43 did however teach DPRK an important lesson. They realized that any deal made with the USA without the means for to independently enforce it was not worth the paper on which it was written. That is why they decided to keep on developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Development of these weapon systems reached a new urgency once Kim Jong-un formally became the head of state and the results of that drive are plainly visible. To make a long story short, nuclear weapons and ICBMs are the means by which DPRK can enforce any agreements it makes with USA and South Korea.

But haven’t we all heard some noise about DPRK willing to denuclearize soon? Well.. you heard wrong. DPRK is just repeating what it has always said, which is that it willing to participate in talks about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The precise wording does change a bit every time they make that offer, however the general gist of their demands remains the same. In short, they will denuclearize only if guaranteed safety from future military attacks or invasion by USA or South Korea. The problem with that condition is that USA has proved to be a completely unreliable party to such agreements in the past, with DPRK and more recently with countries in the Middle-East.

It does not help that no country has renounced self-developed nuclear weapons once they have built more than a few of them. Nor does the american treatment of countries which did not have them (Iraq) or stopped developing them (Libya) inspire any confidence. So what is Kim Jong-un trying to achieve by meeting with Trump? Also, is this meeting really about Trump or USA? Some jingoistic idiots in USA think that Kim Jong-un expressing a desire to meet Trump is the result of “economic sanctions working”, “China finally getting tired of DPRK” or some other assorted masturbatory fantasy common among older white men. The reality, once again, is quite different.

The proposed meeting with Trump is largely about chipping away at the alliance between South Korea and USA. And here is why.. For starters, the ruling class in DPRK have a very good and objective understanding of how the establishment in USA works or does not work. They know that the deep state in USA is incapable of doing things other than more war, economic sanctions or attempting to rape the economies of other countries. They understand that any treaty with USA without independent means to enforce it is worthless. They also understand that anything short of dissolving the current system in DPRK will not be acceptable to the deep state in USA- and that is not going to happen.

They have figured out that different parts of the government in USA, such as the legislatures, can and will derail any agreement just because the D-grade actors within them like to “act tough” for the credulous idiots who voted for them. They are fully aware of the extent to which decisions made by legislators are controlled by corporate donors, especially from the military-industrial complex. In other words, DPRK understands that anything short of complete and utter capitulation by them is unacceptable to most cliques in the american government. But, they also know that many in South Korea are willing to sign an agreement with far more realistic terms.

So how do you drive a permanent wedge between South Korea and USA? Well.. you start by developing the capacity to reliably nuke large metropolitan areas in mainland USA. Acquisition of such a capacity by DPRK makes any serious conventional or nuclear assault on it by USA and South Korea basically impossible. It also makes significant american intervention in any armed conflict between DPRK and South Korea far less likely than before. But that by itself is not enough to drive a wedge between them, which is why you require the second part.

Then next step for driving a wedge between them requires DPRK to put forth conditions for an agreement whose terms are perfectly acceptable to South Korea but will never be accepted by USA (even if they initially appear to be willing). We should therefore see the latest diplomatic overtures by Kim Jong-un as part of a strategy where he offers basically everything necessary for South Korea to accept the agreement but with just enough sticking points to be rejected by USA. That way, Kim Jong-un appears as the stable and reasonable person willing to deal with other countries such as South Korea and USA look like some out-of-touch old white guy still living in the 1950s.

But why do such something like this, if it is almost certain to fail? After all, South Korea is unlikely to sign an agreement without the explicit approval of USA.. right? But here is the thing.. DPRK understands that and actually wants that outcome because of what such a public failure will lead to. While South Korea will not sign an agreement without explicit american consent at this moment, it might very well have to do within a couple of years. Face it.. DPRK with its nukes and ICBMs is going to magically disappear if you wait long enough and South Korea understands that only too well. They also know that some stupid miscalculation by USA (especially the Trump administration) in near future could get them nuked regardless of who started the conflict.

In summary, the long-term survival and strategic interests of South Korea are no longer in line with american policy towards that region. DPRK understands this inherent contradiction and is cleverly using it to split the close alliance between South Korea and USA. To them, the proposed meeting with Trump is therefore just an opportunity to decisively show South Koreans and the world that they are far more reasonable than USA. They also know that the sheer amount of vitriol against Trump by the deep state in USA will cancel out any reasonable move made by him in such a meeting.

What do you think? Comments?

Michael Cohen is the Non-Fictional Version of Barry Zuckerkorn from AD

April 17, 2018 3 comments

In the past, more than one commentator has noted the peculiar similarities between members of the Trump family and his successful presidential campaign to characters and the story arc of the cult comedy TV series “Arrested Development“. It now seems that the usual similarities between reality and that TV series have stepped up one notch within the last few days. In fact, one of the central plotlines of the 4th season was the Bluth family trying to resurrect their family fortunes by pushing for the construction of a wall between USA and Mexico which was sold to racist voters as a way to “keep those Mexicans out”.

Some of you might remember the character of Barry Zuckerkorn, played by Henry Winkler, who is the loyal but highly incompetent lawyer of the Bluth family. One of the running gags in that series was that Barry (with a few exceptions) somehow always managed to make problems worse than they were prior to his involvement. Enter Michael Cohen, Trump’s long-time personal attorney, who has managed to make the whole situation around making payouts to women who claimed to have affairs with Trump in the past, far more problematic than necessary. Most of you would agree that the overall similarities between the two are considerable.

and here is a YT clip of one of the very few times his character displays competence, on a very topical issue.

What do you think? Comments?

Bush and Trump: History Repeats.. First as Tragedy, Then as Farce

April 14, 2018 8 comments

Presented without comment in response to the yesterday’s developments in Syria.

What do you think? Comments?

The Single Biggest Mistake Trump Has Made Since His Inauguration

April 10, 2018 8 comments

Regular readers of this blog might remember that, almost a year ago, I had written a short series about the likelihood of Trump completing his term as President. Some might also remember an even older series about my thoughts on the likely trajectory of a Trump presidency. To make a long story short, I predicted that the Trump presidency would become a giant shit-show because of his excessive and continued dependence on establishment republicans and an obsession with portrayal by corporate media. As some of you might have noticed, many of these predictions came true. Trump, so far, has “governed” like a moderately retarded establishment republican.

The inability of democratic party to translate the general lack of enthusiasm about Trump and Republicans into anything beyond a few electoral successes says volumes about their incompetence and general lack of vision. Then again, they are a bunch of intellectually bankrupt wankers, who cannot talk about anything beyond “Russia”, “Putin” and “Collusion”. These idiots seem to believe that the majority of people in USA who today live in a constantly precarious financial situation actually give a shit about their amateurish theatrical productions.. I mean “investigations”. Ironically, their stupid “investigations” have done more to make Trump look sympathetic to his support base and many others than was otherwise possible.

Having said that, it is now obvious to even his main support base that Trump has screwed up royally. For starters, he been unable to keep any of his major campaign promises (reasonable or ludicrous) to any worthwhile extent. Then there is the whole other issue of how everything he has “achieved” till now is restricted to pro-corporate establishment republican bullshit that many of his strongest supporters hate with a passion. Some of you might say that this turn of events was to be expected since Trump was always a scam artist- and that is partially correct. However, that does not address a far bigger issue- namely, his future.

His single biggest mistake and failure, so far, has been his inability to govern as a successful usurper.

Let me explain that in a bit more detail. Trump, you see, fits into a category of leaders known as Usurpers. While that term is often used to de-legitimize the person targeted with that label, the reality is that usurpers are typically people who start as outsiders or peripheral members of the ruling elite. They then go on attain political power through some combination of dumb luck, political intrigue and general dissatisfaction with status quo. Well known examples of such people through history include Julius Caesar, Augustus, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

Less well-known examples of usurpers include Caligula, Cesare Borgia, Catherine the Great, Hong Xiuquan and Chiang Kai-shek. So why do some usurpers end up as successful and famous, while others as examples of failure and mockery. The short answer is that it comes down to two things. Firstly, their ability to increase their support base among general population and secondly, their handling of leftover elites and power structures of the previous regime. Every successful, or almost successful, usurper in history was able to extend his or her support base beyond the one which brought them to power. Even people such as Hitler and Stalin had high levels of genuine public support when they were in power.

So how did these successful usurpers increase their levels of public support once they assumed power? The short answer is, by presiding over populist reforms and redistribution of wealth. Perhaps you have heard how Julius Cesar was able to extend his power and increase his popularity by promulgating and implementing a host of populist economic reforms after he first became dictator. Or how Augustus spend a lot of money on construction of public buildings and other stuff that was useful to the non-elites in population as well as creating jobs. Even less savory characters such as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao made considerable effort to employ more people and redistribute wealth away from the previous group of elites.

And this brings us the second defining characteristic of all successful usurpers- they destroyed the previous elite class and replaced them with a new one. Of course, not everybody pulled a Stalin and summarily jailed, exiled or killed the previous elites or anybody associated with them. Some like Caesar, Augustus and Hitler gradually pushed all previous elites who did not agree with them out of positions where they could cause problems. Others like Napoleon had the advantage of starting with a clean slate because of preceding events. But make no mistake, every single usurper who succeeded and lived to tell the tale spent a lot of their energies destroying every member of the previous elite class who they did not trust.

Which brings us to Trump or, more precisely, how he has failed so far. To make a long story short, Trump has been unable to do the two most important things any usurper must do in order to succeed in the long-term. As many of you know, Trump has been unable or unwilling to implement genuine populist reforms which would extend this support base. To that end, everything he has done so far has enriched the already wealthy previous group of elites (who hate him anyway) while increasing the impoverishment of his supporters. But it gets worse.. Successful usurpers end up as successful because they do manage to change the status quo in a manner which makes them more popular.

So far, Trump has rubber-stamped every establishment policy and idea- however boneheaded it might have been. I would go so far as to say that most decisions made by him in office are almost identical to those made by Bush43 and Obama44. His most fatal mistake, however, has been his reluctance or inability to get rid of the previous elite class from positions of power. In spite of a higher than usual turnover in senior posts, he has been unable to replace enough rank-and-file type junior elites to actually consolidate his grip on power. It does not help that he has filled his administration with establishment republican types who hate him or people who are so unpopular and out of touch with reality that their unpopularity rubs onto him.

In conclusion, I think that there is very high chance that Trump will be remembered as an unsuccessful and incompetent usurper. The next one, might however, be far more competent.

What do you think? Comments?

Corporate Media Campaign to Discredit Nunes Memo is Helping Trump

February 3, 2018 18 comments

I usually avoid writing on topics involving yet another corporate media manufactured lie or purported outrage, because those bullshit fantasies usually have no worthwhile impact on reality- rather like the proverbial storm in a teacup. The corporate media campaign, first to hinder publication of the Nunes memo and then attempt to discredit it is, however, a bit different for reasons we shall soon discuss. But before we go any further, I will clarify my positions on the background of some of the characters involved in this darkly comic saga.

Firstly, Devin Nunes is a mediocre republican congressman representing a congressional district in rural California– with a passing resemblance to an obese version of the Michael Scott character from the american version of ‘The Office‘. Before his current rise to fame (or infamy), he was just another republican politician who never found a corporate dick which was too disgusting to suck- provided he was compensated for his services. In other words, he is your generic republican politician who was elected because the democratic party candidate was either absent or even more disgusting.

Secondly, my views on Trump are very well-known and my past predictions about him have turned out to be very accurate. As some of you might remember, I predicted that he would win the republican nomination in August 2015. I then predicted that HRC would lose to Trump in the 2016 general election, regardless of what all those credentialed “experts” were saying. My very early predictions about the likely disastrous trajectory of a Trump presidency have held up quite well. I have also written about the probability of Trump completing his first term in Office. To make a long story short, it is highly unlikely that the ongoing Mueller investigation will end his presidency.

Now, let us turn our attention to the Nunes memo aka what most people in USA had already guessed about the Mueller investigation. As some of my more regular readers might remember, I have written numerous posts about how promotion of the “Russiagate” scandal was always a sign of intellectual bankruptcy among establishment democrats. I also wrote about the main reasons why establishment democrats have a desperate need to keep on believing in that made-up story and how they and their supporters in the corporate media have kept up a non-stop campaign which aims to convince people that Trump is a “puppet of Putin” who was elected only because of “russian interference in our sacred elections”.

To be clear, once again- I am not implying that Trump is a competent president. In fact, his first year in office has proven to be train-wreck of epic proportions for everybody but the rich and corporate donors to the republican party (and their minions in the legislature and judiciary). Establishment democrats have, however, largely ignored his abysmal record on a range of issues from providing massive tax breaks for the rich, multiple attempts to destroy important regulatory agencies, destroying healthcare programs and much more. Instead they seem to be unduly focused on non-issues such as his moral character, personal life, alleged collusion with Putin and now ‘obstruction of justice’.

But what does any of this have to do with the corporate media’s reaction to the release of the Nunes memo? As it turn out, a fucking lot! The memo for all its issues, explicitly says that the FBI investigation into the Trump presidential campaign in 2016 was initiated based on sketchy and politically biased sources. In other words, it suggest that the investigation into “Russiagate” and Trump-Russia and Trump-Putin connections is a witch-hunt conducted by people in FBI (and deep-state) who want Trump to resign or be impeached. As many of you might realize, this is precisely what a majority of american who are not partisan democrats have come to believe over the last year.

The corporate media, in its enthusiasm to support establishment democrats, is making things far worse than things might have been. Let me explain.. to begin with, they kept on shouting from the rooftops that releasing the memo was somehow going to cause massive damage to ‘national security’ which seems rather farcical once you actually read that four page document. Now that it has been released, they are assaulting everyone with talking points from the same set of “credentialed experts” who confidently say that the same memo is either meaningless or shoddy.

Which begs the question- how did a memo whose release was going to start the end of days before it was released quickly turn out to be a worthless and shoddy piece of work? Clearly, something is not right with the corporate media- and most people have caught on that problem over the last few years. Some of you might remember how the same media outlets and talking heads tried to tell everyone that Trump’s morals and personal life made him unfit to elected president during the 2016 election campaign.

Remember how over 80% of HRC’s attacks advertisements in 2016 were about Trump’s character and language and how it would affect children watching TV? I wonder how that worked, given that she outspent him by more than 2-to-1. Or what about all those polls prophesying a landslide HRC victory which filled corporate media in 2016. My point is that a majority of people now do not believe what they read, hear or see on corporate media. In fact, they are far more likely to believe the opposite of whatever the corporate media is trying to make them believe- not unlike how people in soviet-era Russia saw the domestic reporting of Pravda and Izvestia.

To summarize, the corporate media’s very visibly coordinated campaign to first try suppressing the release of the Nunes memo and then try to ‘debunk’ it has given that memo far more credibility than otherwise possible. The whole ganging up on Trump , releasing identical ‘debunking’ points about that memo and constant coverage of “credentialed experts”makes Trump look like the victim of an elitist deep-state that is working tirelessly to immiserate average people. To put it another way, the corporate media and their backers have, once gain, achieved the near impossible- make Trump look like the real victim while simultaneously increasing public support for him if he ends up firing more people from the FBI and DOJ. Quite impressive and darkly comic, if you ask me.

What do you think? Comments?

Could Oprah Winfrey Win Against Donald Trump in 2020 Election: 2

January 14, 2018 7 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about why Oprah Winfrey might be a much better presidential candidate for the democratic party that most of it current slate of generic neoliberal candidates. Some readers appeared to think that I was endorsing such an action. The truth is a bit different. The point I was trying to make was that somebody like Oprah was far more likely to win a presidential election against Trump or any other republican than somebody like Booker, Gillibrand, Harris or any other talentless neoliberal fraud.

Having said that, let us now try to answer some of the potential objections raised in the comment section of that post..

1] More than one person (1, 2) noted that Oprah does not seem to have any overall principle and that she is just a far more successful main-stream female version of Alex Jones. You know what.. I can certainly agree with both those points. But then ask yourself- what was the guiding principle behind Clinton, Bush43, Obama, Trump and pretty much every person elected to that office? Were they in it for anything beyond gaining power, becoming famous and using it to make money in their later years.Can you think of a single president who ran for office for reasons that were not completely selfish and self-serving?

Also, when did people who pushed scams and lies become ineligible for that office to date? Do you remember Bush41 and his infamous pledge on taxes and lies about Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait? What about the many lies, scams and neoliberal deregulations pushed by Clinton42? What about Bush43 and his extremely expensive lies about Iraqi WMDs? What about Obama44 and his many lies about standing up for the average person? To make a long story short, most people elected to be president have always been greedy, vain and amoral hucksters. An Oprah presidency would not represent a deviation from this established norm.

2] One comment (3) suggested that white and latino men would not vote for a black woman. But would that matter? You see, the majority of white men have voted for the republican presidential candidate for the last 20-30 years. Guess what, we still had Clinton42, Obama44 and almost had Gore and Kerry. To put it another way, the vote of white men is not that important for democratic candidates in the presidential election. In fact, HRC could have won in 2016 if the number of blacks voting for her was similar to Obama in 2012. Democrats know that they will not get the majority of blue-collar white male votes.

One of the more interesting effects of Trump’s presidency has been the extent to which it has resulted in increased support for democrats among Hispanics, especially the younger ones. In other words, it would be extremely easy for democrats to gain new Hispanic voters and increase turnout even if their candidate was a black woman. While latino men may not like voting for a black woman, the other option (a republican presidency and congress) is far worse. So, ya, I do not foresee much of a problem with getting latino men to vote for a black woman.

3] I also think that her lack of professional political experience is no barrier to people voting for her, largely because so many “professional” politicians at both the national and state level have not delivered for anybody other than themselves and their rich donors. Also, that is the reason Trump won the republican nomination and the presidency. In other words, her lack of political experience is actually a plus if she decides to run for the presidency. Furthermore, even a brief overview of her interviews over the years suggests that she is a very smart woman- even if she has used that talent mainly to enrich herself.

The election of Trump in 2016 has also changed public expectations of who is seen as electable and what speech or behavior such a person can get away with. Even a series of major scandal concocted by right-wing media types about Oprah is unlikely to affect her chances of winning the democratic candidacy or presidency, largely because democratic and, increasingly, unaffiliated voters simply do not care as long as the person in question was seen as an improvement over Trump. Also, the negative effects of ‘tax reforms’ and other neoliberal policies passed by the republicans will be too evident in 2020 for people to care about some right-wing media inspired personal gossip about the democratic candidate.

4] We also cannot discount the possibility that Oprah might decide that promising single payer health care, inexpensive university education etc is a far better strategy than just sticking to the tired and discredited neoliberal line. She has, in the past, repeatedly shown a talent for picking up emerging trends which turned out to be highly profitable for her later. You should not, therefore, be surprised if she decides to go ‘full Bernie’. I should add that doing so would be quite easy for her since she has never been publicly associated with neoliberal policy positions in the past. Moreover, she could use her new public positions on those issues as a brand differentiator between her and other establishment democrats in the primaries.

Such a strategy would be particularly devastating against establishment democrats such as Booker, Harris and Gillibrand who are little better than third-rate actors spouting neoliberal “commonsense” bullshit. I mean.. why would consumers prefer third-rate imitators when they can get the first-class professional, especially if she goes full-bore populist. I should also point out that her long and generally well-liked tenure as a TV show host makes her far less likely to face the kind of public distrust and voter apathy that plagued HRCs campaign in 2016.

To be clear, I am not saying she would make a good, let alone great, president. My point is that she would be an almost unstoppable candidate in the current political environment and would likely win in a general election against Trump or any other republican candidate.

What do you think? Comments?