Trump (Part 4)

[claig]

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

Chris, and while we're at it, will you remove the cartoon from an earlier post? The name of the source (which is highly visible) is highly offensive offensive.

I think we're supposed to find a lot of what Trump says and does hysterically funny, aren't we? The people are laughing at the discombobulation of the elites.

Yes the Trumpite attitude does come across like that - a mix of smirking and finger pointing which ironically puts me in mind of the teenage SWPers of my youth. And actually does seem to have parallels with the Corbynista mentality - strong on righteous indignation and fuck the establishment - not so strong on the detail and nuance of how exactly things are going to change when they are in charge. [old git emoticon]

So, to be clear, from earlier in the thread:

Me: "Are you saying that how women are treated is not an important policy issue?"

Chris: Quiet the opposite Lweji. Indeed, the utter absence of discussion about policy issues affecting women in the 'angry white GOP male' fest, is the point.

(I'll ignore that the particular article was about the "angry white GOP male" fest and the author can't possibly cover all issues in one article)

Yet, when we engaged here in discussing policy issues affecting women, most pps either stayed away, or diverted into discussing style of posting.
That happened with the Trump campaign, which made discussing any actual policy issues virtually impossible.
Hence the questions here. Which have largely remained unanswered.

Right, I've come back after several hours and no Trump supporter has attempted to answer the question of what people with unwanted pregnancies should do if they are unable for good reason to have an abortion before 12 weeks, nor has anyone attempted to say whether they accept that women will be worse off under Trump and whether they care about that. From which I have to conclude that they are well aware that the answer to neither question puts their hero in a good light and they would rather close their eyes to the issue than answer it.

But if my conclusion is wrong, do feel free to explain why.

"Mika Brzezinski says Clinton camp tried to pull her off the air

Hillary Clinton’s campaign tried to remove an MSNBC personality from the air after she aired criticisms of the Democratic presidential candidate, the host revealed Friday.

Mika Brzezinski, a co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” said NBC was pressured to get her pulled during the campaign."

nypost.com/2016/12/09/mika-brzezinski-says-clinton-camp-tried-to-pull-her-off-the-air/

Most analysts are saying that Trump will probably appoint Rex Tillerson CEO of Exxon as Secretary of State. Fantstastic choice, knows most of teh world leaders, businessman, not a SPAD or "career politician".

Roger Stone saying that it looks like Trump toyed with Mutt Romney Says that one of his sources says that Romney's tounge was hanging out at the prospect.

Some analysts still saying that the elite are trying to stop Trump. It may not be over. Trump has to get voted in on Dec 19th by the electors.

Exxon CEO. Great choice, indeed.
I'm sure he won't have any conflict of interest with the Middle East either. :)

But, more worrying news:
www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/climate-change-energy-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=1

"WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences."

"In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories"

So, among many concerns
a) witch hunt in preparation?
b) commercialise the research... Surely that's bad news in terms of transparency and being for the people, as per previous posts on this thread. No?

"...knows most of teh world leaders..."
Well he knows one in particular very well......
money.cnn.com/2016/12/11/investing/rex-tillerson-exxon-russia-putin/index.html
And it looks like he'll have plenty of his own conflicts of interest too.
"Exxon would likely stand to gain if sanctions are lifted on Russia by the new administration. "

Which reminds me.

It was argued before that commercial interests were bad. People working in private companies (Big Private Companies) were biased and against the people. Surely, CEOs weren't just puppets, but puppeteers. So, why are business owners and CEOs considered now as good choices for the administration?
Or is it just Big Pharma that are dangerous, as well as those nasty alternative energy companies?
And Exxon is just a benevolent seller of petrol?

'So, among many concerns
a) witch hunt in preparation?
b) commercialise the research... Surely that's bad news in terms of transparency and being for the people, as per previous posts on this thread. '

I am in favour of Trump getting real and telling the truth on climate change. We don't yet know if he really has the courage to go against the elite on that. Today on Fox, he said he was "open minded" about the Paris Climate Change Deal. We don't know if he is playing nice with the elite now in order to fool them and hit them hard when he gets in or if he will be swayed by the elite's teams.

Commercialisation, great stuff. More money.

Tillerson has said he doesn't believe in sanctions. Tillerson is apparently a fantastic negotiator and salesman and he gets on with people. Sounds fantastic. Good relations.

It all sounds a bit purge-y, doesn't it Lweji?

One of the most troubling things about the potential Russian election interference is the way Trump reacted by attacking the CIA. If you look at the people he surrounds himself, they are all people who agree with him and massage his ego. That is dangerous - creating a bubble free from even mildly dissenting opinions does not bode well for sensible decisions.
Russian interference does not necessarily mean that it tipped the balance of the election, nor does it mean that Trump had any knowledge of it, but his reaction has been appalling:

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/11/intelligence-agencies-cia-donald-trump-russia

“When the president-elect’s transition team is attempting to discredit the entire intelligence community [IC], it has never been more important for the IC and Congress to guard against possible political pressure or retaliation against intelligence analysts,”

“If Trump is willing to disregard sound intelligence now, and demean the hard-working and patriotic Americans who produced it, I fear what he will do as president when confronted with unpleasant truths,” Schiff said.

“Will he accept the best insights of our agencies, or punish them for daring to contradict his assumptions?”

'People working in private companies (Big Private Companies) were biased and against the people'

Who said that? Trup worked for a big private company and just about everybody except the Hillary supporters thinks Trump is great and better than any SPAD or meber of the "political class".

'Surely, CEOs weren't just puppets, but puppeteers.'

CEOs aren't puppeteers, they are too busy running businesses.

'So, why are business owners and CEOs considered now as good choices for the administration? '

Because they are not "career politicians" and puppets and because they are successful business people who create jobs and prsoeperity, just like Trump. Trump fans ike Trump because he is a "businessman" and not a member of the "political class" of servants.

Of course he's against sanctions. They cost the company he's CEO of up to $1 billion.

Has your definition of "elites" shifted again to mean anyone who believes in climate change?

'So, why are business owners and CEOs considered now as good choices for the administration? '

No. Ed Miliband believes in climate change and he is as far from elite as it gets, more like muppet.

Claig, did you read fourmummy's posts about the influence of commercialisation on science? Do you think direct commercial interests improve the trustworthiness and transparency of research?

So, it's just Big Pharma that's a problem, then?
And alternative energy companies?
Those are elite and establishment, and have created a huge climate hoax conspiracy?
I'm trying to keep up, but it's not easy. :)

Yes, its worrying how Trump dismisses the idea of external involvement, particularly considering that he publicly invited external involvement. He could have simply been foolish, but, who knows?

Watching an SNL clip just now
Angela Merkel: Oh, yes, in America you call it the alt-right. In Germany, we call it why grand-papa lives in Argentina now.

"Climate summit chief pleads with Trump not to ditch Paris treaty

Marrakech COP22 president urges US president-elect to join battle against global warming for sake of humanity"

www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/18/poor-nations-pledge-deep-emissions-cuts-at-marrakech-climate-change-summit

What will Trump do? Has he got the courage to take on the entire elite and end their entire game? Amazing times. Will their teams persuade Trump otherwise?

If only I had that list to keep up with the good and the bad guys...

He's making a list, he's checking it twice, he's going to state who's elitist or nice...
Trump's great purge is comiiiiing to tooowwwn!

Some analysts are saying that Trump is playing nice now in order to fool the elites, but things may change when he gets in.

Trump is insane.

""There is not just smoke here. There is a blazing 10-alarm fire, the sirens are wailing, the Russians provided the lighter fluid, and Trump is standing half-burnt and holding a match,” said Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer and interrogator."

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/11/intelligence-agencies-cia-donald-trump-russia

But more seriously, claig, you've read (presumably, if you posted the link) about the pleas and the difficulties faced by the poorest countries that have to face climate change.
Yet, you seem to think it is a big conspiracy and the agreement should be dismissed. You, thus, seem to think it's desirable to leave the poorest countries to fend for themselves protecting their shores and their agriculture from extreme weather.
Am I wrong?

Even if you didn't believe in man-made climate change (despite the evidence), if temperatures are rising due to natural causes surely it would still be prudent to invest in defences?

'you've read (presumably, if you posted the link) '

No, I only read the headline that they were pleading with Trump.

I think it is a scam. The poor countries get money to go along, transfer of funds from the richer countries who have to offset their carbon output etc.

Trump says he is "open minded" about it. Hopefully he is just playing nice with the elites and will call them out on it when he gets in, but he is up against the biggest power structure in the world so he may not be able to go all the way. It will be fascinating to watch.

Trump may let us down, he may back down, he may not be able to go against them.

'if temperatures are rising due to natural causes surely it would still be prudent to invest in defences?'

No because you have to understand the elite's agenda in order to understand their objectives and if you understand that you understand the disadvantages for humanity.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/09/the-six-donors-trump-appointed-to-his-administration-gave-almost-12-million-with-their-families-to-his-campaign-and-the-party/?utm_term=.7c44d31985fb

Listen to the sound of that swamp overflowing.

"The people wanted Hillary but the elite were too clever for them " etc etc